Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 492.0

524US2

Unit: $U93

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

447

Opinion of the Court

difference between this statute and all of its predecessors,
however, is that unlike any of them, this Act gives the Presi-
dent the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted
statutes. None of the Act’s predecessors could even argua-
bly have been construed to authorize such a change.

VI

Although they are implicit in what we have already writ-
ten, the profound importance of these cases makes it appro-
priate to emphasize three points.

First, we express no opinion about the wisdom of the pro-
cedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act. Many mem-
bers of both major political parties who have served in the
Legislative and the Executive Branches have long advocated
the enactment of such procedures for the purpose of “ensur-
[ing] greater ﬁscal accountability in Washington.” H. R.
Conf. Rep. 104–491, p. 15 (1996).41 The text of the Act was
itself the product of much debate and deliberation in both
Houses of Congress and that precise text was signed into
law by the President. We do not lightly conclude that their
action was unauthorized by the Constitution.42 We have,
however, twice had full argument and brieﬁng on the ques-
tion and have concluded that our duty is clear.

Second, although appellees challenge the validity of the
Act on alternative grounds, the only issue we address con-
cerns the “ﬁnely wrought” procedure commanded by the
Constitution. Chadha, 462 U. S., at 951. We have been

41 Cf. Taft, The Presidency, supra n. 30, at 21 (“A President with the
power to veto items in appropriation bills might exercise a good restrain-
ing inﬂuence in cutting down the total annual expenses of the government.
But this is not the right way”).

42 See Bowsher, 478 U. S., at 736 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)
(“When this Court is asked to invalidate a statutory provision that has
been approved by both Houses of the Congress and signed by the Presi-
dent, particularly an Act of Congress that confronts a deeply vexing
national problem, it should only do so for the most compelling constitu-
tional reasons”).