RULING OR AMENDMENT: PRESIDENT NEEDS LINE-ITEM VETO

A law passed by Congress last year granting the line-item veto to the president is unconstitutional, according to the federal judge who struck it down a few days ago. First, a little background.

The great majority of state constitutions grant to their chief executives, in one form or another, the power to veto individual spending items contained within the budgets passed by legislative bodies. It is beyond contest that empowering the chief executive in this manner helps to restrain spending and to balance budgets. The great majority of state budgets, including Missouri's, are balanced annually, in no small part owing to this feature.

It is therefore unsurprising that fiscal conservatives have for years sought to add this feature at the federal level, where spending restraint is sorely needed. Legal opinion among constitutional scholars has been divided as to whether this feat could be accomplished by legislation or solely by amending the Constitution.

Lacking the necessary two-thirds supermajorities needed to propose an amendment to the states, the Republican congressional majority moved legislation to attempt it by statute. This they passed, giving to a president of the opposing party a major increase in power vis-a-vis the legislative branch, so complete was their devotion to the principle it embodied. It is this enactment, which took effect in January, that the federal judge struck down.

It is anyone's guess whether this single judge's ruling will be upheld on a special, direct appeal to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, therefore, it is good to see that Rep. Jo Ann Emerson is proposing a constitutional amendment to accomplish this same goal. Passage of such an amendment would remove any doubt, even as it would be an enormously important corrective measure in restoring sanity and balance to the federal budget process.