In order for the president to have the power of a line-item veto, what must happen?

Inhaltsverzeichnis Show

Nominations
Executive Orders
The Extent of the President's Powers

In its first three articles, the U.S. Constitution outlines the branches of the U.S. Government, the powers that they contain and the limitations to which they must adhere. Article II outlines the duties of the Executive Branch.

The President of the United States is elected to a four-year term by electors from every state and the District of Columbia. The electors make up the Electoral College, which is comprised of 538 electors, equal to the number of Representatives and Senators that currently make up Congress. The citizens of each state vote for slates of electors who then vote for the President on the prescribed day, selected by Congress.

To become President, a person must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Naturalized citizens are ineligible, as are persons under the age of 35. In the case that the President should be unable to perform his duties, the Vice-President becomes the President. Amendment XXII placed a two-term limit on the presidential office.

War Powers

Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the President cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (which happened in Vietnam and Korea). The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to define when and how the President could send troops to battle by adding strict time frames for reporting to Congress after sending troops to war, in addition to other measures, however it has not had much effect (see "War Powers Resolution" section in the Commander in Chief Powers article).

Nominations

The President is responsible for nominating candidates for the head positions of government offices. The President will typically nominate cabinet officials and secretaries at the beginning of his or her presidency and will fill vacancies as necessary. In addition, the President is responsible for nominating Federal Circuit Court judges and Supreme Court justices and choosing the chief justice. These nominations must be confirmed by the Senate. While the President usually has broad appointment powers, subject to Senate approval, there are some limitations. In National Labor Relations Board v. SW General Inc. (2017), the Supreme Court found that the "Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 [FVRA], which prevents a person who has been nominated to fill a vacant office requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation from performing the duties of that office in an acting capacity, applies to anyone performing acting service under the FVRA."

Further, the President is constitutionally allowed to make recess appointments when Senate is not in session (which means that such appointments are not subject to Senate approval until the end of the session). However, In National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court found that "for purposes of the clause, the Senate is in session whenever it indicates that it is, as long as – under its own rules – it retains the capacity to transact Senate business." As such, the Senate can claim to always be in session, therefore preventing the President from making any recess appointments.

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the President can override Congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued numerous ones related to US involvement in World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order.

Pardons

The U.S. Constitution gives the President almost limitless power to grant pardons to those convicted of federal crimes. While the President cannot pardon someone impeached by Congress, he or she can pardon anyone else without any Congressional involvement.

The Extent of the President's Powers

Article II of the Constitution contains the vesting clause, which states: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This has historically been interpreted to mean that the President is the head of the Executive Branch, but that he is still subject to limits within that Branch (i.e. if the President fires members of the Executive Branch, Congress would have oversight and would be able to investigate the firings.) Some scholars, however, have interpreted the Vesting Clause under a much stronger lens, finding that the President has full power over the entire Executive Branch. Under this theory, commonly referred to as the Unitary Executive Theory, any decision that the President makes regarding the Executive Branch would not be subject to any sort of review or oversight (i.e. Congress would not be able to investigate the President's firings of any members of the Executive Branch). While the Supreme Court has not directly embraced or rejected this theory, Justice Alito has made comments which have caused some to think that he endorses the theory: "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power — the whole thing."

Keywords
- Article II powers
- President
- constitution
- U.S. CONSTITUTION

The line item veto is a now-defunct law that granted the president absolute authority to reject specific provisions, or "lines," of a bill sent to his desk by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate while allowing other parts of it to become law with his signature. The power of the line item veto would allow a president to kill parts of a bill without having to veto the entire piece of legislation. Many governors have this power, and the president of the United States did, too, before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional.

Critics of the line item veto say it granted the president too much power and allowed the powers of the executive branch to bleed into the duties and obligations of the legislative branch of government. "This act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes," U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1998. Specifically, the court found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which allows a president to either sign or veto a bill in its entirety. The Presentment Clause states, in part, that a bill "be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it."

U.S. Presidents have frequently asked Congress for line-time veto power. The line item veto was first brought before Congress in 1876, during President Ulysses S. Grant’s term of office. After repeated requests, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

This is how the law worked before it was struck down by the high court:

Congress passed a piece legislation that included taxes or spending appropriations.
The president "lined out" specific items he opposed and then signed the modified bill.
The president sent the lined-out items to Congress, which had 30 days to disapprove of the line item veto. This required a simple majority vote in both chambers.
If both the Senate and House disapproved, Congress sent a "bill of disapproval" back to the president. Otherwise, the line item vetoes were implemented as law. Prior to the act, Congress had to approve any presidential move to cancel funds; absent congressional action, the legislation remained intact as passed by Congress.
However, the President could then veto the disapproval bill. To override this veto, Congress would have needed a two-thirds majority.

Congress has periodically given the President statutory authority not to spend appropriated funds. Title X of The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 gave the president the power to both delay the expenditure of funds and to cancel funds, or what was called "rescission authority." However, to rescind funds, the president needed congressional concurrence within 45 days. However, Congress is not required to vote on these proposals and has ignored most presidential requests to cancel funds.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 changed that rescission authority. The Line Item Veto Act put the burden on Congress to disapprove a line-out by the president's pen. A failure to act meant the president's veto take effect. Under the 1996 act, Congress had 30 days to override a presidential line item veto. Any such congressional resolution of disapproval, however, was subject to a presidential veto. Thus Congress needed a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override the presidential rescission.

The act was controversial: it delegated new powers to the president, affected the balance between the legislative and executive branches, and changed the budget process.

Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas introduced the initial legislation with 29 cosponsors. There were several related House measures. There were restrictions on presidential power, however. According to the Congressional Research Service conference report, the bill:

Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to authorize the President to cancel in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax benefit signed into law, if the President: (1) determines that such cancellation will reduce the Federal budget deficit and will not impair essential Government functions or harm the national interest; and (2) notifies the Congress of any such cancellation within five calendar days after enactment of the law providing such amount, item, or benefit. Requires the President, in identifying cancellations, to consider legislative histories and information referenced in law.

On March 17,1996, the Senate voted 69-31 to pass the final version of the bill. The House did so on March 28, 1996, on a voice vote. On April 9, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. Clinton later descried the Supreme Court's strikedown of the law, saying it was a "defeat for all Americans. It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds."

The day after the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 passed, a group of U.S. senators challenged the bill in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. U.S. District Judge Harry Jackson, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, declared the law unconstitutional on April 10, 1997. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled the senators did not have standing to sue, tossing their challenge and restoring the line item veto power to the president.

Clinton exercised the line item veto authority 82 times. Then the law was challenged in two separate lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A group of lawmakers from the House and Senate maintained their opposition to the law. U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, also a Reagan appointee, declared the law unconstitutional in 1998. His ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled that the law violated the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the U.S. Constitution because it gave the president the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been passed by Congress. The court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the process that the U.S. Constitution establishes for how bills originating in Congress become federal law.

The Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011 allows the president to recommend specific line items be cut from legislation. But it's up to Congress to agree under this law. If Congress does not enact the proposed rescission within 45 days, the president must make the funds available, according to the Congressional Research Service.