Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wasn't a matter of not comprehending - I simply ignored it. The ruling was on the constitutionality of the line item veto and the specific law passed by Congress that gave the President the authority to veto selected portions of bills. The Supreme Court found that the law - the Line Item Veto Act - was unconstitutional. See below.
Facts of the Case:
This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.
Question:
Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?
Conclusion:
Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.
It is the same argument. The Supreme Court held that Congress cannot delegate their constitutional authority to the President. What applies to their ruling on the Line-Item Veto also applies to the Antiquities Act. At least not without first amending the US Constitution in accordance with Article V.
That right, the people own the land and if the people wish to see their land preserved, it is NOT up to a few big businesses to determine what to do with the land. It is up to society as a whole, since the big businesses do not own the land. Thus, when the a majority of the population support environmental protections, who are you to determine what should be done with the land for just your interests?! Note: the percentage of the population that is pro-environment is a lot more than just some elite in east coast cities. If the land belongs to the whole country, then the whole country should determine what to do with it.
Second, when Congress approved the Antiquities Act, Congress granted the President this right by doing so. Hence, I do not see how it is unconstitutional.
Who is the president to decide what the people want? Let Congress decide. Better yet, let the people who live there decide. People were literally burned out of their homesteads in Alaska years ago by the NPS because someone in California or NY who never stepped foot in Alaska didn't want someone living there. That Antiquities law has been incredibly abused, it was intended to protect significant places historically, etc., not to make millions of acres off limits to the people who live there.
I'm not a big supporter of big business, but neither do I support the rural cleansers among the big environmental corporations either. These people want to drive all the people out. They're trying to make Northern Maine a national park, they want 90 percent or more of Vermont and New Hampshire off limits to people, out West they're doing their best to make it impossible for people to live in places. Thousands of people out of work, millions of acres of forests in desperate need of thinning, standing tinder; vast mineral resources entirely off limits, people who can't even drive to their homes without harassment and threats of fines from the NPS...
There needs to be a balance between development and preserving the environment, we can't side entirely with one.
It is the same argument. The Supreme Court held that Congress cannot delegate their constitutional authority to the President. What applies to their ruling on the Line-Item Veto also applies to the Antiquities Act. At least not without first amending the US Constitution in accordance with Article V.
It is a similar argument, and may ultimately serve as a precedent should the Antiquities Act be challenged and the case brought before the Supreme Court. Until that time, the Antiquities Act is law. It's been the law for more than 100 years, and although there's always a chance that a 100-year-old law can be found unconstitutional (especially today with the conservative activists on the Court), it hasn't happened yet, regardless of what happened to the Line Item Veto Act.
Glitch, by Congress giving the privelage to the President, Congress is in a way delegating that authority. I feel that your technicality is due to opposition to new national monuments, right?
But what is "constitutional authority." Is declaring national monuments such an authority? I do not see it in the constitution. Besides, this whole arguement is a small technicality that hides the true issue.
The creation of protected areas involves government owned land. The people that live nearby do NOT own the land. For example, just because I live next door to someone does not mean that I have the right to tell them what to do with their land. The land that the federal government decides to protect is that which is owned by the US gov. Not someone who lives in a small town nearby. Your suggestion that many people will be driven from their homes sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. If you own the land, then your land will not become a national monument. Hence, letting a small minority of people who live nearby to decide what the national landscape should look like is a weak argument. As for Congress deciding, perhaps they should be the ones deciding but like a previous poster stated, the Antiquites Act is the law. Thus, you need to respect it.
Oh yeah, before I forget. The real issue is fear over loosing unrealiable employment. I feel that people should really move into the present with regards to this one.
Glitch, by Congress giving the privelage to the President, Congress is in a way delegating that authority. I feel that your technicality is due to opposition to new national monuments, right?
It is not a mere "technicality", it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Congress cannot abrogate their constitutional authority by giving it to President. Whether I support or do not support the new national monuments has nothing to do with the authority granted to Congress by the US Constitution. As I stated before, Congress has the authority to do whatever they please with regard to US territory or other US property, that includes setting aside public lands to be a National Monument. My objection to the Antiquities Act is strictly on a constitutional basis. It would be no different than if Congress were to delegate their authority to coin money or declare war to the States. If a power is expressly granted to Congress by the US Constitution, then only Congress has the authority to exercise that power, and no other.
Glitch, how one interprets the constitution is indeed a technicality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
