Editorial: High court atones for Congress' error

THE U.S. Supreme Court Thursday struck down a law that Congress never should have passed. We're talking about the line-item veto, the controversial measure that allowed the lawmakers to shirk their budget-making authority by shifting it to the president.

Congress passed the law in 1996, enabling the president to cancel specific tax and spending measures. President Clinton vetoed 82 items last year. But the high court was right in its majority opinion that Congress cannot delegate such authority to the chief executive.

A president has the right to veto bills, but the court stated that the line-item measure amounted to an unconstitutional partial veto. The majority said the only legal way to give the president that power would be to amend the Constitution.

That route shouldn't be considered, either, because the Constitution shouldn't be amended lightly, such as to solve problems within the budget processes of Congress. The Constitution should be tinkered with rarely, and only to address fundamental issues of our democracy, as when the poll tax was eliminated by the 24th Amendment and the voting age was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment.

Rep. John Ensign and then-Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, both R-Nev., voted for the line-item veto, but Nevada Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan took the common-sense approach by voicing their opposition.

Both senators warned that the measure would threaten the Constitution by giving the president too much power. The law struck down by the court gave the president up to five days after signing tax or spending bills to cut specific items from the legislation.

In effect, the law gave the president legislative power to shape the federal budget. In taking this authority away from Congress, the law upset the balance of power that the constitutional framers envisioned for the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The line-item veto gave the president the power of a monarch, with Congress in a subservient role.

The law also hurt smaller population states such as Nevada. Large states such as California and New York, whose delegations carry the most clout in Congress, would have a much easier time marshalling support to restore vetoed funding than would the four-member Nevada delegation. That's why it's hard to understand how anyone from a small state could have supported the measure.

Presidents naturally crave line-item power, and Clinton was no exception. Unfortunately, most congressmen were willing to give up budget-making authority. They figured they could take credit for pork barrel projects that were left in the budget while letting the president shoulder the blame for other items that were cut.

archive