Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 523

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

478

CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Breyer, J., dissenting

added); Pub. L. 104–134, § 2901(c), 110 Stat. 1321–160 (Presi-
dent is “authorized to suspend the provisions of the [preced-
ing] proviso” which suspension may last for entire effective
period of proviso, if he determines suspension is “appro-
priate based upon the public interest in sound environmental
management . . . [or] the protection of national or locally-
affected interests, or protection of any cultural, biological or
historic resources”).

All of these examples, like the Act, delegate a power to
take action that will render statutory provisions “without
force or effect.” Every one of these examples, like the pres-
ent Act, delegates the power to choose between alternatives,
each of which the statute spells out in some detail. None of
these examples delegates a power to “repeal” or “amend” a
statute, or to “make” a new law. Nor does the Act. Rather,
the delegated power to nullify statutory language was itself
created and deﬁned by Congress, and included in the statute
books on an equal footing with (indeed, as a component part
of) the sections that are potentially subject to nulliﬁcation.
As a Pennsylvania court put the matter more than a century
ago: “The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a
law; but it can make a law to delegate a power.” Locke’s
Appeal, 72 Pa. 491, 498 (1873).

In fact, a power to appoint property offers a closer analogy
to the power delegated here than one might at ﬁrst suspect.
That is because the Act contains a “lockbox” feature, which
gives legal signiﬁcance to the enactment of a particular ap-
propriations item even if, and even after, the President has
rendered it without “force or effect.” See 2 U. S. C. § 691c
(1994 ed., Supp. II); see also ante, at 440–441, n. 31 (describ-
ing “lockbox”); but cf. Letter from Counsel for Snake River
Cooperative, dated Apr. 29, 1998 (available in Clerk of
Court’s case ﬁle) (arguing “lockbox” feature inapplicable here
due to special provision in Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the
constitutionality and severability of which have not been
In essence, the “lockbox” feature: (1) points to a
argued).