Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
$1.3 Trillion budget passes the House
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3097696" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p><a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/a-quick-reminder-that-the-line-item-veto-has-already-been-ruled-unconstitutional/" target="_blank">https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/a-quick-reminder-that-the-line-item-veto-has-already-been-ruled-unconstitutional/</a></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">President Donald Trump just asked Congress to give him a line-item veto. It’s a power enjoyed by a number of state governors, and it allows them to veto specific parts of laws they otherwise like. It’s a terrifying tool of executive power.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">And the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that it’s an unconstitutional power for the President of the United States.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The case that I promise you Trump has never even heard of is <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/97-1374" target="_blank">Clinton v. City of New York</a>. Bob Dole introduced the Line Item Veto Act in 1996. It passed both chambers of Congress, and Bill Clinton signed the legislation on April 9, 1996. On November 5, 1996, Bill Clinton roundly defeated Bob Dole in the presidential election, an outcome I’m sure Bob Dole did not anticipate when he gave his adversary such enormous power.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The Line Item Veto Act specifically gave the president the power to use the line-item veto in budget bills, exactly the kind of bill President Trump unhappily signed today. Clinton used the veto to strike a few provisions in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and it affected some hospitals in New York City, which promptly challenged the constitutionality of the power.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/97-1374" target="_blank">In a 6-3 decision</a>, the Court held the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, but let’s look at the breakdown of the justices because SOME OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY, don’t ya know.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">For the Majority: Stevens, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG is a Clinton appointee, don’t forget).</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Dissent: Stephen Breyer, Anontin Scalia, and Sandra Day O’Connor.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Yes, folks, there were cases where Justices RBG and Clarence Thomas were on one side while Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer were on the other side. It was a simpler time, when the Court wasn’t constantly being asked to solve ALL THE THINGS and could just occasionally focus on non-ideological issues of law.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens explained that under the “Presentment Clause,” the president was required to approve or reject “whole legislation.” He said that the Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to “amend” legislation, which was an assault on the powers given to Congress under Article I. “[T]his act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes,” wrote Stevens.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Justice Anthony Kennedy — whose opinions on matters are kind of a big deal just at the moment — concurred, but wrote separately. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm" target="_blank">From the Washington Post</a>:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. “Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies,” he said in a concurring opinion.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The case was decided in June of 1998. That’s six months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. I’m not saying that one has anything to do with the other, but it’s worth noting that giving a president authority to change laws of Congress, as he sees fit, in the middle of an ongoing inquiry into whether the president’s sex life led to an obstruction of justice is probably <em>not</em> a thing that the other branches are really that into.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The important point is this: Donald Trump is asking for a power that was ruled unconstitutional just 20 years ago. Fully three of the justices who ruled it was unconstitutional then are still on the Court now. Even if you assume Justice Clarence Thomas would flip to the other side because he is a craven partisan, one must also assume that Justice Breyer would flip to the other side and cancel out the lack of intellectual integrity.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Donald Trump knows none of this. But you should. It totally makes sense that you should be more informed than the President of the United States about the limits of his own power.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3097696, member: 13624"] [URL]https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/a-quick-reminder-that-the-line-item-veto-has-already-been-ruled-unconstitutional/[/URL] [INDENT]President Donald Trump just asked Congress to give him a line-item veto. It’s a power enjoyed by a number of state governors, and it allows them to veto specific parts of laws they otherwise like. It’s a terrifying tool of executive power. And the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that it’s an unconstitutional power for the President of the United States. The case that I promise you Trump has never even heard of is [URL='https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/97-1374']Clinton v. City of New York[/URL]. Bob Dole introduced the Line Item Veto Act in 1996. It passed both chambers of Congress, and Bill Clinton signed the legislation on April 9, 1996. On November 5, 1996, Bill Clinton roundly defeated Bob Dole in the presidential election, an outcome I’m sure Bob Dole did not anticipate when he gave his adversary such enormous power. The Line Item Veto Act specifically gave the president the power to use the line-item veto in budget bills, exactly the kind of bill President Trump unhappily signed today. Clinton used the veto to strike a few provisions in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and it affected some hospitals in New York City, which promptly challenged the constitutionality of the power. [URL='https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/97-1374']In a 6-3 decision[/URL], the Court held the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, but let’s look at the breakdown of the justices because SOME OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY, don’t ya know. For the Majority: Stevens, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG is a Clinton appointee, don’t forget). Dissent: Stephen Breyer, Anontin Scalia, and Sandra Day O’Connor. Yes, folks, there were cases where Justices RBG and Clarence Thomas were on one side while Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer were on the other side. It was a simpler time, when the Court wasn’t constantly being asked to solve ALL THE THINGS and could just occasionally focus on non-ideological issues of law. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens explained that under the “Presentment Clause,” the president was required to approve or reject “whole legislation.” He said that the Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to “amend” legislation, which was an assault on the powers given to Congress under Article I. “[T]his act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes,” wrote Stevens. Justice Anthony Kennedy — whose opinions on matters are kind of a big deal just at the moment — concurred, but wrote separately. [URL='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm']From the Washington Post[/URL]: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. “Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies,” he said in a concurring opinion. The case was decided in June of 1998. That’s six months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. I’m not saying that one has anything to do with the other, but it’s worth noting that giving a president authority to change laws of Congress, as he sees fit, in the middle of an ongoing inquiry into whether the president’s sex life led to an obstruction of justice is probably [I]not[/I] a thing that the other branches are really that into. The important point is this: Donald Trump is asking for a power that was ruled unconstitutional just 20 years ago. Fully three of the justices who ruled it was unconstitutional then are still on the Court now. Even if you assume Justice Clarence Thomas would flip to the other side because he is a craven partisan, one must also assume that Justice Breyer would flip to the other side and cancel out the lack of intellectual integrity. Donald Trump knows none of this. But you should. It totally makes sense that you should be more informed than the President of the United States about the limits of his own power.[/INDENT] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
$1.3 Trillion budget passes the House
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom