Clinton v City of New York
S. Ct. 1998
Author: Sam Biers

Delegation of Legislative Power to the Executive

Facts: The Line Item Veto passed by Congress, and six members filed suit.  That was initially dismissed for lack of standing for failure to state a concrete injury.  Two months later President Clinton used the Act to cancel one provision of the Balanced Budget Act, and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act.  The portion of the Taxpayer Act would have allowed the facilitation of transfers between refiners and processors to farmers’ coops.  The portion of the Balanced Budget Act would have granted relief to the State of New York for its unpaid portion of taxes related to their funding medical care for the indigent.  NY submitted a waiver but received no answer from HHS.  NY then applied under Balanced Budget Act which would have granted money for disputed taxes.

Issue:  Whether the passage of Line Item Veto Act which confers legislative power to the executive was unconstitutionally?

Holding: Yes.

Procedure:  Consolidated case involving the same challenge.  U.S. District Court held statute invalid, the cancellations did not conform to the constitutionality for enactment or repealing of laws.  Affirmed.

Rule: A5 - Grants Congress express authority to enact, amend and repeal statutes.  A1S7c2 provides the Executive with the power to either approve in whole or reject in whole.

Ct Rationale: The difference between the President’s “return,” of a bill and the exercise of the cancellation authority under the LIVA is a return takes place before a bill becomes a law, and the cancellation after it is a law.  The return is of the whole bill, and the cancellation is only a part. The Constitution is silent as to whether the President has power to repeal or amend enacted statutes.  President Washington believed that The Presentment Clause requires the President to approve all parts of a Bill or reject it in toto. In the foreign affairs arena the President has some discretion and freedom from statutory restriction, (Curtiss-Wright). There is comparison when the President cancels direct spending and declines to spend funds.  The President lacks the authority to amend portions of enacted statutes.  If the legislation wants to confer additional authority upon the Executive branch it is by way of A5 Amendment to the Constitution, not statutory provisions.

PL A: (Govt) The cancellations are exercises of discretionary authority granted to the President by Congress, and that authority is no more and no less than the power to decline to spend or to decline to implement tax measures.

[LIVA confers comparable discretionary authority over the expenditures of appropriated funds]

Def A: [The farmers’ coop] The President does not have a Constitutional power to change portions of duly enacted statutes, only to reject the whole bill or pass the whole bill.