Clinton v. City of New York

U.S. History Analytical Reading Activities Clinton v. City of New York (1998) Since the inception of the Constitution, battles over how power should be distributed among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have been a central part of our national conversation. In the case, Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Supreme Court, exercising its own powers under judicial review, considered a unique question: Does a power granted to the president by Congress violate the Constitution? Central to the question for the Court was the meaning of the Presentment Clause in Article I, Section 7. As you read excerpts from the majority opinion, look for the four elements of any Supreme Court decision that will support your efforts to uncover how the rationale of the majority opinion relates to the political principles underlying our policymaking institutions of gov ernment. Check Your Understanding SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED ST ATES WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., APPELLANTS v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The Line Item Veto Act (Act) . . .was enacted in April 1996 and became effective on January 1, 1997. ... How is the Line Item Veto Act connected to President Clinton’s actions in the Balanced Budget Act (1997) and the Tax Payer Relief A ct of 1997? President Clinton used his authority under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to cancel a provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 Academic Vocabulary ... the President exercised his authority to cancel one provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 . . . and two provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 . . . Use context clues and what you know about the role and function of the Supreme Court to define appellees and statute. Appellees, claiming that they had been injured by two of those cancellations, filed these cases in the District Court. That Court again held the statute invalid . . . and we again expedited our review . . . Academic Vocabulary We now hold that these appellees have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Act and, reaching the merits, we agree that the cancellation procedures set forth in the Act violate the Presentment Clause, Art. I, §7, cl. 2, of the Constitution. Appellees: a person who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court Statute: a written law passed by a legislative body What does it mean to hav e “standing” to challenge an issue in the cour ts? the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case U.S. Government and Politics On the merits, the District Court held that the cancellations did not conform to the constitutionally mandated procedures for the enactment or repeal of laws in two r espects. First, the laws that resulted after the cancellations “were different from those consented to by both Houses of Congress.”... Analytical Reading Activities Source Analysis Circle the two reasons the District Court found the line-item veto unconstitutional. Moreover, the President violated Article I “when he unilaterally canceled provisions of duly enacted statutes.” As a separate basis for its decision, the District Court also held that the Act “impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of government.” Ibid. ,,, IV The Line Item Veto Act gives the President the power to “cancel in whol e” three types of provisions that have been signed into law: “(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or (3) any limited tax benefit.” It is undisputed that the New York case involves an “item of new direct spending” and that the Snake River case involves a “limited tax benefit” as those terms are defined in the Act. It is also undisputed that each of those provisions had been signed into law pursuant to Article I, §7, of the Constitution before it was canceled. The Act requires the President to adhere to precise procedures whenever he exercises his cancellation authority. In identifying items for cancellation he must consider the legislative history, the purposes, and other relevant information about the items. He must determine, with respect to each cancellation, that it will “(i) reduce the Federal budget deficit; (ii) not impair any essential Government functions; and (iii) not harm the national interest.” Moreover, he must transmit a special message to Congress notifying it of each cancellation within five calendar days (excluding Sundays) after the enactment of the canceled provision. It is undisput ed that the President meticulously followed these procedures in these cases... Thus, under the plain text of the statute, the two actions of the President that are challenged in these cases prevented one section of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and one section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 “from having legal force or effect.” The remaining provisions of those statutes, with the exception of the second canceled item in the latter, continue to have the same force and effect as they had when signed into l aw. Check Your Understanding What were the requir ements that the president had to meet to conform to the Line Item Veto Act? that it will “(i) reduce the Federal budget deficit; (ii) not impair any essential Government functions; and (iii) not harm the national interest.” And tell congress within 5 days Check Your Understanding Explain whether President Clinton followed the procedures as laid out in the la w. No as he amended 2 acts when he had no authorization to do so In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. “[R]epeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.” There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to r epeal 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 “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient … .” Thus, he may initiate and influence legislative proposals. Source Analysis What does the Court find was the effect of President Clinton’s actions? the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each Check Your Understanding Circle the sections of the Constitution that outline how the President can affect the la wmaking process . Connect to Content 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, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections a t large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.” His “return” of a bill, which is usually described as a “veto,” is subject to being overridden by a two-thirds vote in each House. According to the Constitution, how can the President affect the lawmaking process? By signing the new bill if agrees or vetoing it if he does not agree There are important differences between the President’s “return” of a bill pursuant to Article I, §7, and the exercise of the President’s cancellation authority pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. The constitutional return takes place before the bill becomes law; the statutory cancellation oc curs after the bill becomes law. The constitutional return is of the entire bill; the statutory cancellation is of only a part. Although the Constitution expr essly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes. Statutory: Enacted by a statute Source Analysis What are the differences between the actions that the Constitution authorizes the president to do and what the Line Item Veto Act allowed? By the constitution the president can return the bill before it is enacted, by the act the president can cancel the bill while it is enacted Academic Vocabulary Take what you know about the word statute and define the term statutory in the space below the paragraph where the word first appears. There are powerful reasons for construing constitutional silence on this profoundly important issue as equivalent to an express prohibition. The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself.... Our first President understood the text of the Presentment Clause as requiring that he either “approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto.” What has emerged in these cases from the President’s exercise of his statutory cancellation powers, however, are truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses of Congress. They are not the product of the “finely wrought” procedure that the Framers designed.... construing: understanding or explaining truncated: cut short Source Analysis Circle the sentence or phrase that explains how the Court interpreted the Constitution’s silence on the issue of whether the president can veto parts of a bill. Check Your Understanding What remarks does the Court offer regarding the Framer s’ intentions? It did not meet their expectations Although they are implicit in what we have already written, the profound importance of these cases makes it appropriate to emphasize three points. First, we express no opinion about the wisdom of the procedur es authorized by the Line Item Veto Act. … Second, although appellees challenge the validity of the Act on alternative grounds, the only issue we address concerns the “finely wrought” procedure commanded by the Constitution. ... Thus, because we conclude that the Act’ s cancellation provisions violate Article I, §7, of the Constitution, we find it unnecessary to consider the District Cour t’s alternative holding that the Act “impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of g overnment.” Third, 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 the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, §7, of the Constitution. Source Analysis Describe the three reasons why the majority upheld (affirmed) the judgment of the District Court. 1. The have no opinion on what is authorized by the Line Item Veto Act 2. Violates Article 1 section 7 3. The decision rests on that fact that the Act is not authorized by the constitution Check Your Understanding 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,” such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. What would be necessary for a line-item veto to be constitutional? It has to be done through the amendment as stated in Article 5 of the constitution After You Read Thinking Like a Political Scientist Reasoning Process: Definition How did the Court’s understanding of the Presentment Clause and the president ’s role in lawmaking inform the decision in this case? That the president can only veto a bill after congress agrees on it and before it is enacted How do this case and the constitutional questions it presents reflect Madison’s arguments in Federalist No. 51? It reflects Madison’s arguments as it goes with his point of someone having too much power; in this case, the court defined the limitations of the president’s power within the passing of a law Political Science Disciplinary Practices Source Analysis On what basis does the Court support its holding in Clinton v. City of New York (1998)? It violates Article 1 section 7 of the constitution, as the president is not authorized to cancel a law after it has been passed How did the Court’s decision limit the veto power of the president? It showed that the president can only veto a bill after congress agrees on it and before it is enacted Making Connections In Federalist No. 51, Madison claims that the legislative branch in a r epublic is naturally the most powerful and that the executive is weaker. Is this true today? Which branch of government would you assert is most powerful in the modern era? Explain. That is not true today, the president has the power to veto any law and if congress does not agree with a decision the president can execute an executive order to overrule it In his concurring opinion in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), Justice Anthony Kennedy considered the broader question that the majority opinion avoided. He stated: “Separation of powers helps to ensure the ability of each branch to be vigorous in asserting its proper authority ... By increasing the power of the President beyond what the Framers envisioned, the statute compromises the political liberty of our citizens, liberty which the separation of powers seeks to secure.” Who makes the stronger argument, the majority or Kennedy? Explain whether the Court was doing its duty in this case (interpreting the law), or overstepping by striking down a law passed by Congress. Kennedy as he is right, the branches were created to balance the power within the federal government; and the court did do its job by interpreting the law, they specified that the act passed was not backed by the constitution, making it unlawful.