Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 525.0

524US2

Unit: $U93

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

480

CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Breyer, J., dissenting

cedures for enacting (or repealing) legislation is beside the
point. The Act itself was enacted in accordance with these
procedures, and its failure to require the President to satisfy
those procedures does not make the Act unconstitutional.

IV

Because I disagree with the Court’s holding of literal viola-
tion, I must consider whether the Act nonetheless violates
separation-of-powers principles—principles that arise out of
the Constitution’s vesting of the “executive Power” in “a
President,” U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1, and “[a]ll legislative
Powers” in “a Congress,” Art. I, § 1. There are three rele-
vant separation-of-powers questions here: (1) Has Congress
given the President the wrong kind of power, i. e., “non-
Executive” power? (2) Has Congress given the President the
power to “encroach” upon Congress’ own constitutionally
reserved territory? (3) Has Congress given the President
too much power, violating the doctrine of “nondelegation?”
These three limitations help assure “adequate control by the
citizen’s Representatives in Congress,” upon which Justice
Kennedy properly insists. See ante, at 451 (concurring
opinion). And with respect to this Act, the answer to all
these questions is “no.”

A

Viewed conceptually, the power the Act conveys is the
right kind of power.
It is “executive.” As explained above,
an exercise of that power “executes” the Act. Conceptually
speaking, it closely resembles the kind of delegated author-
ity—to spend or not to spend appropriations, to change or
not to change tariff rates—that Congress has frequently
granted the President, any differences being differences in
degree, not kind. See Part IV–C, infra.

The fact that one could also characterize this kind of power
as “legislative,” say, if Congress itself (by amending the ap-
propriations bill) prevented a provision from taking effect, is
beside the point. This Court has frequently found that the