Supreme Court Case: President of the United States v. City of New York, 1998 The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the President the power to amend or repeal parts of bills that had been passed by Congress. The law was intended to limit government spending by giving the President the right to cancel a single appropriation or tax benefit within a large appropriations or tax bill without having to veto the entire bill.President Clinton exercised this power by cancelling two provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The law was quickly challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the law allowed the President unilateral authority to change enacted laws and was therefore unconstitutional. Majority Opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact. to amend, or to repeal statutes. Both Article I and Article II assign responsibilities to the President that directly relate to the lawmaking process, but neither addresses the issue presented by these cases. [The President) may initiate and influence legislative proposals. Moreover, after a bill has passed both Houses of Congress, but "before it become(s) a Law," it must be presented to the President. If he approves it, "he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, His "return" of a bill, which is usually described as a "veto," is subject to being overridden by a two-third vote in each House. whenever the President cancels an item of new direct spending or a limited tax benefit he is rejecting the policy judgment made by Congress and relying on his own policy judgment. this Act gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statues. Our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution __ If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law -one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as "Public Law 105-33 as modified by the President" may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may "become a law" pursuant to Article I, [Sec.17. If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role, such change must come through the Article V amendment procedures. 1. Why would allowing the Line Item Veto Law to be enforced upset the system of checks and balances? 2. Identify the passages in the Majority Opinion that give the basis for the Supreme Court decision.

Question

Supreme Court Case: President of the United States v. City of New York, 1998 The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the President the power to amend or repeal parts of bills that had been passed by Congress. The law was intended to limit government spending by giving the President the right to cancel a single appropriation or tax benefit within a large appropriations or tax bill without having to veto the entire bill.President Clinton exercised this power by cancelling two provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The law was quickly challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the law allowed the President unilateral authority to change enacted laws and was therefore unconstitutional. Majority Opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact. to amend, or to repeal statutes. Both Article I and Article II assign responsibilities to the President that directly relate to the lawmaking process, but neither addresses the issue presented by these cases. [The President) may initiate and influence legislative proposals. Moreover, after a bill has passed both Houses of Congress, but "before it become(s) a Law," it must be presented to the President. If he approves it, "he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, His "return" of a bill, which is usually described as a "veto," is subject to being overridden by a two-third vote in each House. whenever the President cancels an item of new direct spending or a limited tax benefit he is rejecting the policy judgment made by Congress and relying on his own policy judgment. this Act gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statues. Our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution __ If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law -one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as "Public Law 105-33 as modified by the President" may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may "become a law" pursuant to Article I, [Sec.17. If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role, such change must come through the Article V amendment procedures. 1. Why would allowing the Line Item Veto Law to be enforced upset the system of checks and balances? 2. Identify the passages in the Majority Opinion that give the basis for the Supreme Court decision.

Answer 1

1. Allowing the Line Item Veto Law to be enforced would upset the system of checks and balances because it would give the President unilateral authority to change enacted laws. This would undermine the legislative power of Congress and disrupt the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The President would be able to reject specific provisions of a bill without having to veto the entire bill, which would give him too much influence over the legislative process.2. The passages in the Majority Opinion that give the basis for the Supreme Court decision are:"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.""whenever the President cancels an item of new direct spending or a limited tax benefit he is rejecting the policy judgment made by Congress and relying on his own policy judgment.""Our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution.""If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law --one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature."

Problemas

Roztwór

Respuesta