The Supreme Court today heard arguments in the case in which the court must decide whether President Clinton will become the first U.S. president authorized to use the line item veto.
Alan Morrison, an attorney for members of Congress who challenged the law, said it "fundamentally alters the federal lawmaking power by giving the president powers of cancellation" of spending items.
Justices repeatedly asked Morrison to explain how legislators on the losing side of a political debate -- instead of citizens claiming injury from an actual line-item veto -- could file such a suit. And he argued legislation altered by the president through the line-item veto could be drastically different from versions approved by Congress. However, Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger pointed out Congress can exempt particular spending items from the line-item veto when it writes the legislation.
A federal judge, acting in a lawsuit filed by six members of Congress, earlier this year struck down the law as impermissibly shifting too much power from Congress to the executive branch.
Administration lawyers also contend members of Congress lack the legal standing to challenge the law. The lawsuit was filed by former Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D- N.Y., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Reps. David Skaggs, D-Colo., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
A decision is expected by July.
Following oral arguments, Office of Management and Budget Director Franklin Raines and the primary congressional opponents of the line item veto bill -- Byrd and Skaggs -- offered their assessments. Raines characterized the controversial power as a deficit reduction tool duly delegated to the chief executive by the legislative branch, telling reporters: "It is important the president have the authority granted to him by Congress to bring down the deficit with the line item veto." Referring to ways Congress imposes limits on its power of the purse, Raines cited the "Byrd rule," which requires that only provisions related to the deficit be included in reconciliation bills.
However, Byrd said the line item veto "is not a shift or delegation of authority, this is a transfer of authority to the president" and would, in effect, make the president a legislator "because he [could] unilaterally change a law that has been passed."
Skaggs added, "Congress is not empowered to transfer powers given to it in the Constitution to the president" and such a transfer, if not struck down by the Supreme Court, would "effect the entire relationship between the president and Congress . . . in the entire range of activities of government."
NEXT STORY: Still On the Hunt