Here is the supreme court brief: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1374.ZS.html
but basically, it was ruled to be in violation of the Presentation clause, because "there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. " On 4/30/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why would it be ruled unconstitutional? Because it allowed the president to > override items in a budget that was submitted by another branch of > government? I guess I answered my own question, but on the whole something > like that really is needed. An average budget/bill has literally hundreds of > riders attached to it that usually have nothing to do with the base bill. > Why was the system every set up to allow such riders? > > > > The line item veto existed from 1996 until ruled unconstitutional in > > 1998. Clinton used it 82 times during this period. Bush requested in > > his 2006 state of the union address that congress grant him the line > > item veto, but so far no action has been taken by congress to comply > > with his wishes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205902 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
