A Stitch in Haste

So here is a summary of how the Bush version of the line-item veto is different from the 1996 version:

Instead of being able to strike items from bills, he would send one or more items back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Present law permits Congress to ignore these proposed rescissions, but under the Bush proposal lawmakers would have to vote on them. If majorities in both the House and the Senate agreed with the president, the cuts would take effect.

So instead of a issuing a "line-item veto" that would require a two-thirds vote of each chamber of Congress to override, the President could demand a "line-item recount" that would require only a simple majority of each chamber.

Huh?

And the White House thinks that would survive review under Clinton v. New York?!? They think that simply diluting the hurdle from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority somehow rescues the line-item veto?

That is about as wrong as is humanly possible.

At least Article I provides for a presidential veto (or "return"), just not by line item. Again, the President signs "it" or returns "it." But Article I says nothing about a presidential "remand" or "recount." Where is the Administration getting this from? By what twisted logic can they claim that this satisfies Clinton v. New York?

The 1996 line-item veto law misread Article I of the Constitution; the President's "Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006" just flat-out ignores it. This proposal crafts a whole new extra-constitutional legislative process out of whole cloth. This the President and Congress may not do. Extra-constitutional is unconstitutional. That was the whole point of Clinton v. New York.

The Supreme Court could not have been more clear on this: The Constitution says what it says. If you don't like it, then amend it.

Or are we next going to render Article V a nullity?

More thoughts from To The People, SCOTUSblog.