Discussion of Clinton v. State of New York

The Constitution gives the President three discrete functions following bicameral adoption of a bill in Congress. First, he may elect to sign it. Second, he may veto the bill and return it with a statement of his objections to the house of Congress in which the bill originated. Finally, he may do nothing, in which case the bill becomes law without his signature, unless the Pocket Veto Clause applies. The Constitution proscribes in great detail how separation of powers, discussion, and many other things can be accomplished. The reality of the situation is that the system doesn’t work perfectly and that side issues in the form of federal spending or regional issues almost always seem to slow the process of legislation. While the president has some veto power under the Constitution, there is always a great deal of time taken up with reforming, reformatting and rewriting proposed laws.

The Constitutionality of the Line Item veto was decided on a federal level. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said the law, centering on its violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, violates the Constitution's requirement that the president sign or veto bills in their entirety. Judge Hogan said th

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

O'Connor was elected to the Maricopa County Superior Court in 1975 and appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979 (The Supreme Court of the United States: Its Beginnings & Its

Justices 1790 1991, 1993). Defendants named in the suit are Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and White House budget director Franklin Raines, the executive branch officials who would implement key provisions of the law (Byrds Eye View, 1998). The two accept ions would be the National Taxpayers Union who were for the passage and implementation of the law (Statement of John E. Scalia said that there is not a dime's worth of difference between allowing the president to cancel a particular project, through the line item veto, and allowing him to spend money on a particular item at his discretion (Pear, R. They asserted the law violates Article I of the Constitution that requires legislation to be passed by a majority vote by both chambers of Congress and be approved or vetoed in its entirety by the president. It makes only four narrow exceptions to this single mechanism by which the provisions of a law may be canceled. The Constitution (see #3 below) also requires that both the amendment and repeal of statutes conform with these Article I requirements. Justice Scalia found no conflict with the line item veto law simply because he could find no person or suit with standing that could (then) challenge the President’s action (Opinion of Scalia, No. " The lawmakers urged the court to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, saying "there is a strong public interest" in getting the matter decided promptly.

Approximate Word count = 2264
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.