If I might reply to my distinguished friend and chairman who asked, ``Who has agreed? If we assert this is unconstitutional, who has agreed?'' May I just read a passage from the opinion of the one Justice of the Supreme Court who has commented on the constitutionality question? It was John Paul Stevens, 26 June, 1997. Our complaint had been filed on January 2, the first business day of this year after the act took effect. He says: The line-item veto purports to establish a procedure for the creation of laws that are truncated versions of bills that have been passed by the Congress and presented to the President for signature. If the procedure were valid, it would deny every Senator and every Representative any opportunity to vote for or against the truncated measure that survives the exercise of the President's cancellation authority. Because the opportunity to cast such votes is a right guaranteed by the text of the Constitution, I think it clear that the persons who are deprived of that right by the act [meaning the plaintiffs] have standing to challenge its constitutionality. Moreover, because the impairment of that constitutional right has an immediate impact on their official powers, in my judgment they need not wait until after the President has exercised his cancellation authority to bring suit. Finally, the same reason that the respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the statute is unconstitutional.…
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the constitutionality of the line-item veto during a Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Patrick Moynihan
I rise to introduce a Sense of the Senate Resolution that calls on the National Park Service to relocate the Hamilton Grange, which is the home of Alexander Hamilton. As Washington's aide-de-camp during the Revolution, delegate to the…
I think the Senator, the chairman of our committee, has spoken so well and effectively; the Senator from Montana equally so. I believe this debate has been thorough. We respect our friend from South Carolina. We know his views. We do not…
It is the best hope of mankind at this moment, sir, because the age of nuclear warfare is not over. If we think we have proliferation today, wait until we see. We won't, but if we were to announce that we want the Chinese on hold, I cannot…
So states the balance of payments, sir. They come in under our tariffs, which are already nonexistent. We can't get in under theirs. Under this agreement, they have agreed to bring them down to a reasonably low level and to wipe them out…





