- [Narrator] The United States Supreme Court's decision
in Clinton versus City of New York hinges
not only on reading the Constitution
with a fine tooth comb, but also
on the color of pen the President tries to use
when signing a bill.
The Line Item Veto Act allowed
the President to take out his red pen
and cross out three types of pending legislation.
First any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority.
Second, any item of new direct spending
or third, any limited tax benefit.
The exercise of the Line Item Veto
could be used to nullify a provision
in a bill signed into law, thereby preventing
the provision from having any force or affect.
In 1997 Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act.
The bill subsequently came across President Bill Clinton's
desk for signature.
He took out his blue pen and signed
the bill into law using his constitutional authority.
He then took out his red pen to exercise
his statutory authority under the Line Item Veto Act.
Using this power, President Clinton
canceled an item of new direct spending,
2.6 billion dollars for the City of New York.
The City of New York and several other organizations
challenged the President's cancellation
in district court.
The district court held that
the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional
under the Presentment Clause of Article One,
Section Seven of the United States Constitution.
The Presentment Clause requires
that legislation be presented to
the President for signature after
it is passed in both houses of Congress.
If the President doesn't approve the bill,
the President may veto it and return it to Congress.
President Clinton appealed directly
to the United States Supreme Court.
The issue before the court was whether
the President's statutory authority
to cancel specific provisions of law
under the Line Item Veto Act was constitutional.
The court held that the Line Item Veto Act
was unconstitutional because it permitted
the President to unilaterally cancel provisions
in the duly enacted statute.
Justice Stevens writing for the six to three court
reasoned that the President's statutory
line item veto couldn't be justified
as part of the President's constitutional veto power.
This was because the line item veto
was significantly different from
the constitutional veto.
The court noted two key differences.
First, the act allowed the President
to cancel provisions only after
the bill was signed into law.
While a constitutional veto takes place
before the bill becomes a law.
Thus, the act effectively allowed
the President to amend duly enacted laws
when the Constitution granted no such authority.
Second, the statutory cancellation power
under the Line Item Veto Act applied
to only part of a bill, whereas
a constitutional veto returns the whole bill.
In other words, the President's
constitutional authority under the Presentment Clause
only allows vetoing an entire bill
and not cherry picking portions
of a bill for cancellation.
Stevens underscored that the framers envisioned
a single, finely wrought procedure to enact laws.
The amendment of laws, just like their enactment,
must be approved by both houses of Congress
and then be presented to the President
for either signature or veto.
The Presentment Clause doesn't allow
the President to unilaterally repeal portions
of a bill passed by Congress.
The court affirmed the ruling of the district court,
holding the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional.
Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion
expressing the view that the Line Item Veto Act
increased presidential powers beyond
what the framers envisioned.
Kennedy argued that individual rights
may be at risk if the President alone
can decide how to tax or spend absent adequate
legislative checks.
Justice Scalia concurring in part
and dissenting in part analyzed
the question as a separation of powers issue.
Scalia noted that Congress routinely provides
discretion to the President to spend money
on particular items and the court
has never seriously questioned the use
of such discretion.
Scalia argued that there's no difference between
Congress authorizing the President
to cancel a spending item, which the act allowed,
and Congress authorizing the President's
discretionary spending.
Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion
arguing that when the President
canceled a provision under the Act,
the President didn't repeal or amend any law,
instead the President simply followed
the law by exercising the statutory power
delegated by the Act.
Clinton versus City of New York stands
for the proposition that the political branches
can't alter the framers design
of constitutional procedures with legislation alone,
rather something like the Line Item Veto Act
would require a constitutional amendment.