The line-item veto is a proposed presidential power to cancel specific spending items inside a larger bill without rejecting the entire bill. Supporters argue it could help control wasteful spending, reduce budget deficits, and give the president a sharper tool during budget negotiations. Critics argue it could shift too much lawmaking power from Congress to the president and upset the constitutional balance of powers.
The debate matters because it asks who should have the final say over how public money is approved and spent.
Key Facts
- A regular veto rejects an entire bill, while a line-item veto targets specific provisions inside a bill.
- The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse through taxing and spending authority.
- Article I, Section 7 requires a bill to be approved by both houses of Congress and then signed or vetoed by the president.
- In Clinton v. City of New York, 1998, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional.
- The Court held that the president cannot unilaterally amend or cancel parts of a law after Congress has passed it.
- Many state governors have some form of line-item veto, especially for appropriations bills, because state constitutions may allow it.
Vocabulary
- Line-item veto
- A power that allows an executive to reject particular spending items or provisions in a bill while approving the rest.
- Appropriations bill
- A law that authorizes government money to be spent for specific programs, agencies, or purposes.
- Presentment Clause
- The part of Article I, Section 7 that describes how bills must be presented to the president for signature or veto.
- Separation of powers
- The constitutional principle that divides government authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
- Judicial review
- The power of courts to decide whether government actions or laws are consistent with the Constitution.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Thinking the president currently has a federal line-item veto. This is wrong because the Supreme Court invalidated the federal Line Item Veto Act in 1998.
- Confusing a line-item veto with a regular veto. A regular veto rejects the whole bill, while a line-item veto would remove selected parts and leave the rest in effect.
- Assuming the Supreme Court opposed all budget-cutting tools. The Court's ruling focused on constitutional procedure, not whether reducing spending is a good or bad policy goal.
- Forgetting that state and federal rules can differ. Some governors have line-item veto power because their state constitutions grant it, but the U.S. president does not have the same authority.
Practice Questions
- 1 A budget bill contains 120 spending items. A governor with line-item veto power cancels 9 items and signs the rest. How many spending items remain approved?
- 2 Congress passes a 18 billion in projects. What percent of the bill would be canceled?
- 3 Explain why the Supreme Court viewed the federal line-item veto as a separation of powers problem, even though Congress had passed the Line Item Veto Act.