WillisWang

APU.S.GovernmentandPolitics
Oct.20th,2015

DidthePresidentialLineItemVetointheClintonv.CityofNewYorkstrengthenorweaken
checksandbalancesinU.S.?

ThecaseofWilliamJ.Clinton,PresidentoftheUnitedStates,etal.v.CityofNew
York,etal.revolvedaroundtheLineItemVetoAct,abillthatgrantedthePresidentpowers
tomodifyaspecificpartofabillwithoutchecksfromtheotherbranches.Thecasewas
arguedonApril27,1998,anddecidedonJune25,1998.ThepaperwillexamineClintonv.
CityofNewYorkandenumerateargumentsthatillustrateawhetherthePresidential
lineitemvetoweakenschecksandbalances.Theessayisstructuredinthefollowingmanner.
PartIprovidesanoverviewofthecaseClintonv.CityofNewYork.PartIIexplainstheway
inwhichchecksandbalancesarestrengthenedthroughthelineitemveto,anditprovides
argumentsthatconveythedegreetowhichthelineitemvetoalsoundermineschecksand
balances.PartIIIevaluatesargumentsmentionedinPartIIandarguesthatthelineitemveto
strengthensthechecksandbalances.Ultimately,PartI,II,andIIIreinforcethenotionthat
Presidentiallineitemvetoisatopicdeemedworthyofdeliberations.

PartI
ThelineitemvetoforthePresidentoftheUnitedStates,LineItemVetoActof1996,
resultedfromnumerousPresidentsrequeststotheCongresstograntthemthelineitemveto
power.StartingwithUlyssesS.Grant,Presidentsofbothpartieshavesoughtthelineitem
vetosotheycouldeliminatewasteintheFederalbudget.Morerecently,PresidentsReagan
andBushcalledforitspassage,asdidmanyMembersofCongress.(SigningtheLine,1996)
RonaldReaganoncesaid,"TonightIaskyoutogivemewhatfortythreeGovernorshave:
Givemealineitemvetothisyear.Givemetheauthoritytovetowaste,andI'lltakethe
responsibility,I'llmakethecuts,I'lltaketheheat."(AddressBeforeaJointSessionof
CongressontheStateoftheUnion,1986)BillClintonechoedtherequestbysayingButI'll
tellyousomething,ifyou'llgivemelineitemveto,I'llremovesomeofthatunnecessary
spending.(AddressBeforeaJointSessionoftheCongressontheStateoftheUnion,1995)
Eventually,theCongressattemptedtograntthispowertothePresidentbytheLineItem
VetoActof1996tocontrolporkbarrelspending.Theporkbarrelreferstospendinginwhich
congressmenusegovernmentspendingonlocalprojectsinabillprimarilytobenefit
congressionaldistricts.

Thelineitemvetoisthepowerofanexecutivetonullifyor"cancel"specific
provisionsofabillwithoutvetoingtheentirelegislativepackage.TheLineItemVetoAct
needsthePresidenttoadheretofollowingprocedureswhenheexerciseshiscancellation
authority.Inidentifyingitemsforremoval,hemustconsiderthelegislativehistory,the
purposes,andotherrelevantinformationabouttheitems.(1994ed.,Supp.II).Heorshe
mustadoptoneofthereasons:(i)reducetheFederalbudgetdeficit(ii)notimpairany

essentialGovernmentfunctions,or(iii)notharmthenationalinterest.(FederalRegister
Volume62,Number232,1997)DistinctionsexistbetweenthePresidentsreturnofabill
fromArticleI,Section7andthePresidentslineitemcancellationauthorityfromtheLine
ItemVetoAct.Thepresidentusesthereturnofabillbeforethebillbecomeslaw,whereas
thelineitemcancellationoccursafterthebillbecomeslaw.Thereturnofabillmainly
focusesontheentirebill.Ontheotherhand,thelineitemcancellationsonlydeleteportions
ofabill.
TwocausesledtothecaseClintonv.CityofNewYork.OnAugust11,1997,the
PresidentexercisedhisauthorityundertheActbycancelingSection4722(c)oftheBalanced
BudgetActof1997.Section4722(c)includedanauthorizationoftheFederalGovernmentto
transferhugesumsofmoneytotheStatestohelpfinancemedicalcareforthepoor.New
YorkCityrequestedawaiverforthosetaxprograms,buttheU.S.DepartmentofHealthand
HumanServices(HHS)didnotformallyrespondtowaiverrequests.BecauseHHShadnot
takenanyactionsonthewaiverrequests,NewYorkCityturnedtoCongressforhelp.
NewYorkCityHealthandHospitalsCorporation(NYCHHC),theinstitutionthat
suedHHS,wasresponsibleforoperatingpublichealthcarefacilitiesthroughouttheCityof
NewYork.IfHHSdeniedtheStateswaiverrequests,NewYorkCitylawwould
automaticallyrequireNYCHHCtomakeretroactivetaxpaymentstotheStateofabout$4
millionforeachyear.TheDistrictCourtheldthatthecancellationofthestatutoryprotection
againsttheseliabilitiescausedsufficientinjury.OnAugust11,1997,thePresidentheldthe
sameargumentsagainsttheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentatives.Hewasdeterminedthat
thiscancellationwillreducetheFederalbudgetdeficit.HeexplainedthatSection4722(c)
wouldhavepermittedNewYorkCitytocontinuerelyinguponimpermissibleprovidertaxes
tofinanceitsMedicaidprogramandthat[t]hispreferentialtreatmentwouldhaveincreased
Medicaidcosts,wouldhavetreatedNewYorkdifferentlyfromallotherStates,andwould
haveestablishedacostlyprecedentforotherStatestorequestcomparabletreatment.
However,thecourtfoundtheGovernmentsargumentotherwise.(WILLIAMJ.CLINTON,
APPELLANTSv.CITYOFNEWYORKETAL,1998)TheDistrictCourtconcludedthat
theappelleessufferedanimmediate,concreteinjurythemomentthatthePresidentusedthe
LineItemVetotocancelSection4722(c)anddeprivedthemofthebenefitsofthatlaw.
(985F.Supp.,at174.)Theexistenceofcontingentliabilityheavilyaffectedtheabilityto
borrowmoney,financialstrength,andfiscalplanningofthepotentialobligor.
ThesecondcauserevolvedaroundthecancellationofSection968oftheTaxpayer
ReliefAct.Theplaintiffswereafarmerscooperativecomprisedof30potatogrowersin
Idahoandanindividualfarmerwhowasamemberandofficerofthecooperative.Thegoalof
AppelleeSnakeRiverPotatoGrowers,Inc.(SnakeRiver)wastoassistIdahopotatofarmers
inmarketingtheircropsandstabilizingpricesbyacquiringpotatoprocessingfacilitiesthat
wouldallowthememberstocontinuetoearnrevenueandbecapableofpayingthefactory
processors.(App.111115ofDeclarationofMikeCranney).Congressproposedan
amendmenttoaidfarmerscooperativesonprocessingfacilities,andSnakeRiverwereready
toexecuteitsconcreteplansiftheamendmentpassed.AppelleeMikeCranney,the

representativeofSnakeRiver,negotiatedwiththeownerofanIdahopotatoprocessorabout
taxbenefitunderthependinglegislation.
ThenegotiationsstoppedwhenthePresidentcanceledSection968.InSection968of
theTaxpayerReliefActof1997,CongressamendedSection1042oftheInternalRevenue
Codetopermitownersoffoodrefinersandprocessorstodefertherecognitionofgainifthey
selltheirstocktoeligiblefarmerscooperatives.Thepurposeoftheamendmentwasto
facilitatethetransferofrefinersandprocessorstofarmerscooperatives.(H.R.Rep.No.
105148,p.420,1997)CongressenactedSection968toenumerateexplicitlypotential
purchasersofassetsincludingprocessors.(N.5,supra)Farmerswhoweresuitableunderthe
definitionwouldreceiveasocalledbargainingchiptotakeadvantageoverthe
congressionalplantofacilitatetheirpurchaseofsuchassets.SnakeRivermustseekother
processingfacilitiesinIdahoduetothePresidentscancellation.
ThePresidentcancelledSection968becausehebelievedthattheuseofthose
bargainingchipswouldhaveasignificantimpactontheFederalbudgetdeficit.TheDistrict
CourtconcludedthatthePresidentscancellationofSection968harmedSnakeRiver
plaintiffsbecausetheylostthebenefitofbeingonequalfootingwiththeircompetitorsand
willlikelyhavetopaymoretopurchaseprocessingfacilitiesnowthatthesellerswillnot[be]
abletotakeadvantageofSection968staxbreaks.Id.,at177.(WILLIAMJ.CLINTON,
PRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES,ETAL.,APPELLANTSv.CITYOFNEW
YORKETAL.ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHE
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA,1998)
Ultimately,theSupremeCourtarguedthatthereisnoprovisionintheConstitutionthat
authorizesthePresidenttoenact,toamend,ortorepealstatutes.ThePresentmentClause,an
illustrationoftheprocessofhowabillbecomeslaw,didnotincludelineitemveto.The
Presidentisonlygrantedwithfollowingauthority:First,heisallowedtoinitiateand
influencelegislativeproposals.(CommentariesontheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates
Section1555,1833)Moreover,tosignit[thebill],butifnotheshallreturnit.(Art.I,
Section7,cl.2.)Theconceptofreturnofabillcanbeoverriddenbyatwothirdsvoteineach
House.

PartII
Somearguethatthelineitemvetostrengthenschecksandbalances.First,grantingthe
presidentalineitemvetowouldmakethePresidentfiscallyresponsible.Fiscalresponsibility
referstotheresponsibilitytoconstraingovernmentspendingandreducedebtasmuchas
possible.Congresshasproveditselfincapableofrestrainingspending.Indeed,betweenFY
1985andFY1999,thegrowthinannualearmarksincreasedsubstantiallyfasterbetween25
to1,000timesfasterinmostcasesthaninflationadjustedfederaldomesticdiscretionary
spending.(HowCongressionalEarmarksandPorkBarrelSpendingUndermineStateand
LocalDecisionmaking,2015)Inthefiscalyear2008,therewere11,610earmarks.Earmarks
arethoseappropriationsrequestedbyindividualCongressmentospendonspecificprojectsto
benefittargeted,smallgroupsintheirdistricts.These11610earmarkscost$17.2billion.
From1991to2008,$271billionwerewastedonearmarks.(WhereHasAllyourMoney

Gone?2008)Manyoftheseitemswereporkbarrellegislation,whichabusedtaxpayers
moneyonprojectsthatgeneratedlittlevalue.Withoutthelineitemveto,thePresidentmust
acceptorrejecttheentirebillandcannotcancelthoseconsideredunworthytospendthe
budget.ThelackoflineitemvetoweakensthePresidentsabilitytocheckonthosepork
barrellegislation.
PeopleshouldnotbesurprisedbythenotionthatitisanormforCongresstoabuseearmarks.
Logrollingisthetermwherebyanearmarkisobtainedinreturnforsupportonanunrelated
pieceoflegislation.Logrollinginvolveslawmakersadvocateforthecompanies,helping
thembypassthenormalsystemofevaluationandcompetition.(Tostopcorruptionandhave
tostartinWashingtonDCbeforewecancleanupthestates,2010)
Checksandbalanceswouldnotcreatecauseanenormousimpactevenwiththe
Presidentiallineitemveto.Congressstillholdsthepowertocheckthepresident.The
PresidentiallineitemvetoonlyallowsaPresidenttoreducethebudget.Ifhewishestoadd
fundingtoprojects,theCongresshastherighttodisapprove.ThemajoritiesinCongresscan
overridethebillwithatwothirdsvote.JusticeStephenBreyer,inhisdissentingopinion,
arguedtheLineItemVetoActdoesnotviolateanychecksandbalancesprinciple.Indeed,
Itisfareasierconceptuallytoreconcilethepoweratissueherewiththerelevant
constitutionaldescription("executive")thaninmanyofthesecases.(Clinton,Presidentof
theUnitedStates,etal.v.CityofNewYorkNo.971374,1998)Onecannotsaythatthe
PresidentiallineitemvetooverpowerstheCongress'powerwhenCongressretainsthepower
tocheckonthepresidentinfutureappropriationsbills.
Regardingefficiencyonthebudgetdeficit,PresidentClintonin1997hascanceledat
least82itemssincetheActwaspassedandbyupto$2billion.(Clinton,Presidentofthe
UnitedStates,etal.v.CityofNewYorkNo.971374,1998)Also,thecancellationdidnot
causeasdramaticeffectsastheCongressionalBudgetOfficeacknowledgedThe1997
cancellationshadarelativelysmallimpactonthebudget'sbottomline,butthatoutcomemay
haveresultedinpartfromtemporaryfactors,suchaslastyear'sbalancedbudgetagreement.
(CBOMEMORANDUM,1998)
However,othersbelievethatPresidentiallineitemvetoweakenschecksand
balances.Althoughthepresidentmustjustifyhisactofcancellationbasedon(i)reducingthe
Federalbudgetdeficit(ii)notimpairinganyessentialGovernmentfunctionsor(iii)not
harmingthenationalinterest,theproblemremainsofthedifficultytoreachconsensustoget
twothirdsofthevotetooverridethePresidentschanges.Presidentialchecksandbalances
woulddamagethebalanceofwithintheUSConstitution.Intheory,Presidentsmayprioritize
anybillsthatprovidethefederalbudgettotheexecutivebranch.ThePresidentiallineitem
vetoinfringesuponlibertytoo.AsJusticeKennedyargued,Byincreasingthepowerofthe
PresidentbeyondwhattheFramersenvisioned,thestatutecompromisesthepoliticalliberty
ofourcitizens,thelibertywhichtheseparationofpowersseekstosecure.(Justice
Kennedy,concurring,Clinton,PresidentoftheUnitedStatesetalv.CityofNewYorketal.,
UnitedStatesSupremeCourt25/6/98,No.971374,1998)Overall,somewouldarguethatthe
PresidentshouldonlywieldexecutivepowerswithintheConstitution.


PartIII.
PresidentsshouldpossesstherighttousePresidentiallineitemveto.Somemayargue
thatitisdifficultfortheCongresstooverrideanychanges.Asamatteroffact,President
Clintonusedtheauthority82times,andtheCongressoverrodehisvetoin38cases.
However,thePresidentmustjustifyhisactionsbasedononeofthesereasons:(i)reducethe
Federalbudgetdeficitand(ii)notimpairanyessentialGovernmentfunctionsand(iii)not
harmthenationalinterest.Indeed,PresidentClintonsaved$2billionthroughthePresidential
lineitemveto.Ontheotherhand,PresidentObamarequestedtheCongresstogranthima
newversionofthelineitemvetobecausehesignal[led]fiscalresponsibility.(Obamato
SeekLineItemVetoPowertoTrimSpendingFromBills,2010)Thenewversiononly
requiresasimplemajorityinsteadofatwothirdsmajoritytooverridetheveto,hence
increasingtheaccountabilityofthebudgetingprocess.TheHouseofRepresentativespassed
abillin2012,whichwouldhavegrantedthePresidentalimitedlineitemvetohowever,the
billfailedtopassintheSenate.PresidentBarackObamalosttheopportunitytoreducethe
federalbudgetinthewayPresidentClintonhaddone.

Inconclusion,thePresidentiallineitemvetoremainsacontroversialtopic.According
totheSupremeCourt,thePresidentiallineitemvetowasnotwithintheconstitutional
boundaryofthePresentmentClausetherefore,PresidentClintondidnothavetherightto
wieldit.RegardingwhetherthePresidentiallineitemvetostrengthensorweakenschecks
andbalances,peopleinterprettheexecutivepowerdifferently.Somearguethatthe
PresidentiallineitemvetostrengthenschecksandbalancesbecausethePresidentcan
eliminateporkbarrellegislationandotherunnecessarybills.Indeed,PresidentClintonwas
abletoreduce$2billionfederalbudget.Ontheotherhand,peoplearguethattheCongress
wouldstruggletogathertwothirdsofthevotetooverridethePresidentschanges.Indeed,
PresidentClintonusedtheauthority82times,buttheCongressoverrodehisvetoin38cases.
Overall,thelineitemvetostrengthenschecksandbalancesbutcanalsopotentially
undermineschecksandbalances.

MLACitation

"Clinton,PresidentoftheUnitedStates,EtAl.v.CityofNewYorkSUPREMECOURTOF
THEUNITEDSTATESAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof
Columbia."Nationalcenter.Web.12Dec.2015.

"THEBUDGETARYTREATMENTOFANINDIVIDUALMANDATETOBUY
HEALTHINSURANCE."CongressionalBudgetOffice.CBOMEMORANDUM.Web.12
Dec.2015.

"FederalRegister/Vol.62,No.232."U.S.GovernmentPublishingOffice.3Dec.1997.Web.
12Dec.2015.

"AddressBeforeaJointSessionoftheCongressontheStateoftheUnion."TheAmerican
PresidencyProject.6Feb.1985.Web.12Dec.2015.

"AddressBeforeaJointSessionofCongressontheStateoftheUnion."TheAmerican
PresidencyProject.4Feb.1986.Web.12Dec.2015.

"TheDeclarationofIndependence:ATranscription."THECHARTERSOFFREEDOM.4
July1776.Web.12Dec.2015.

"ToStopCorruptionandHavetoStartinWashingtonDCbeforeWeCanCleanupthe
States."Examiner.20June2010.Web.12Dec.2015.

Young,J.T."AnotherObamaLegacy?TheEndoftheLineItemVeto."RealClearMarkets.
23Dec.2014.Web.12Dec.2015.

Heinemann,Ej."DoesPresidentObamaHaveaLineItemVeto?"RealClearMarkets.
DAILYKOS,12Nov.2014.Web.12Dec.2015.