1、Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 98-690 AAugust 18, 1998Line Item Veto Act Unconstitutional:Clinton v. City of New York(name redacted)Legislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryOn June 25, 1998, the United States
2、 Supreme Court in Clinton, et al. v. City of NewYork, et al., held that the Line Item Veto Act, violated the Presentment Clause of theConstitution. The Clause requires that every bill which has passed the House and Senatebefore becoming law must be presented to the President for approval or veto, bu
3、t is silenton whether the President may amend or repeal provisions of bills that have passed theHouse and Senate in identical form. The Court interpreted silence on this issue asequivalent to an express prohibition.The Court concluded that the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutionally empoweredthe Presi
4、dent unilaterally to repeal or amend provisions of duly enacted bills. Nonvetoeditems that emerged as law were truncated versions of bills that passed both Houses ofCongress, but not the product of the finely wrought procedure for lawmaking designedby the Framers of the Constitution. For background
