96th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 96-397

VETO OF H.R. 7584

MESSAGE

PROM

THE PRESIDENT OE THE UNITED STATES

VETOING

H.R. 7584

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS

OF STATE. JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, THE JUDICIARY, AND

RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30. 1981. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

December 13, 1980.—Message and accompanying act referred to the

Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

79-011 O WASHINGTON : 1980
To the House of Representatives:

I am returning without my signature H.R. 7584, the State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations Act of 1980. A provision in this Act, 

the Helms-Collins Amendment, would impose an unprecedented 

prohibition on the power of the President of the United States and 

the Attorney General to seek a particular remedy in the Federal 

courts that in some cases may be necessary to ensure that our 

Constitution and laws are faithfully executed.

Throughout my Administration, I have been committed to the 

vigorous enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution and of our civil rights laws. They are the backbone of our 

commitment to equal justice. All Americans are the beneficiaries of 

over two decades of progress since the Supreme Court upheld the 

constitutional right of all races to equal educational opportunity 

and the Congress passed landmark civil rights legislation to end 

discrimination in voting, housing, employment, education and 

public accommodations. We should not turn back the clock to an 

era when the Department of Justice stood passive and the entire 

burden of seeking a remedy for the infringement of constitutional 

rights fell on the victims of discrimination themselves.

I have often stated my belief that busing should only be used as 

a last resort in school desegregation cases. But busing even as a 

last resort is not the real issue here. The real issue is whether it is 

proper for the Congress to prevent the President from carrying out 

his constitutional responsibility under Article II to enforce the 

Constitution and other laws of the United States.

The precedent that would be established if this legislation 

became law is dangerous. It would effectively allow the Congress to 

tell a President that there are certain constitutionally-mandated 

remedies for the invasion of constitutional rights that he cannot 

ask the courts to apply. If a President can be barred from going to 

the courts on this issue, a future Congress could by similar reasoning prevent a President from asking the courts to rule on the 

constitutionality of other laws and the constitutional necessity of 

other remedies upon which the President and the Congress disagree. That would be a most undesirable interference with the 

constitutional separation of powers.

For any President to accept this precedent would gravely encroach on the powers of his office. I have a responsibility to my 

successors and to the American people not to permit that encroachment to take place. I intend to discharge that responsibility to the 

best of my ability.

Jimmy Carter.

The White House, December 13, 1980.

( 3)