Citation. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 118 S. Ct. 2091, 141 L. Ed. 2d 393, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4215, 66 U.S.L.W. 4543, 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,504, 81 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2416, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4905, 98 Daily Journal DAR 6893, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3191, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 735 (U.S. June 25, 1998)
Brief Fact Summary. Certain parties sought to overturn the Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. “If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text of what may “become a law,”ť such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.”ť
Facts. The Line Item Veto Act gave the president the power to cancel certain spending provisions of congressionally enacted bills. The President had to adhere to specific procedures in exercising the veto, which he did so in this case: one section from of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and one section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, leaving the remainder of each acts to be enacted.
Issue. Whether the Line Item Veto Act’s cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.