JUSTICES NULLIFY LINE-ITEM VETO LAW.

Byline: Robert A. Rankin and Aaron Epstein Knight Ridder Newspapers

In a historic assertion of judicial authority, the Supreme Court overruled both Congress and President Clinton on Thursday by striking down the line-item veto law as unconstitutional.

The high court said in a 6-3 ruling that the law violates the Constitution's requirement that presidents must accept or reject unconditionally every bill passed by Congress. The line-item veto lets presidents strike specific terms from broad tax and spending measures.

In China, Clinton issued a statement saying he was ``deeply disappointed. The decision is a defeat for all Americans. It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds.''

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., agreed and announced plans to try to circumvent the court's ruling with new legislation.

``This is a bad decision,'' McCain said. ``Polls from previous years indicate that 83 percent of the American people support giving the president the line-item veto.''

McCain and Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said they soon will introduce legislation that would require each provision in spending bills ``to be a separate item'' able to be vetoed by presidents within the bounds set by the court.

However, Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., celebrated the ruling as a vindication of their view that the line-item veto was an unconstitutional surrender of legislative power that endangered the people's liberty. The pair pressed the court to outlaw the measure last year, but the justices ruled that they lacked standing to force the issue.

Clinton had exercised line-item veto power 82 times since the law became effective Jan. 1, 1997. Congress overrode 38 of his item vetoes earlier this year, reinstating items he had stricken from a military construction bill. The president withdrew one other veto himself.

The 43 vetoes still in effect until Thursday's ruling totaled $869 million in total spending. Their status is now uncertain.

``We have just received the decision and we are reviewing it closely with an eye to what its impact will be,'' said Linda Ricci, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget.

Thursday's decision turned on twin challenges to the law by New York City and the Snake River Potato Growers, Inc., a farm cooperative, both of which stood to lose money as a result of Clinton's line-item vetoes, and thus had legal standing on the question.

``This is a great day,'' Byrd chortled. ``God bless this honorable court!''

Presidents of both parties have long sought the power as a tool for curbing allegedly wasteful ``pork-barrel'' spending. Lawmakers traditionally refused to grant it, saying it would tilt the government's balance of powers dangerously toward the White House.

``Imagine that instrument in the hands of Lyndon Johnson,'' Byrd observed Thursday, saying willful presidents could use the power to pressure lawmakers to do their bidding or else lose spending precious to their districts.

Republicans intent upon shrinking government made the line-item veto a priority of their ``Contract with America'' campaign platform in 1994, when they won control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Congress passed the line-item veto in 1996 and Clinton signed it into law.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said the problem with the line-item veto is that ``there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.'' The Constitution itself must be amended before such power can be granted, Stevens wrote.

Stressing ``the profound importance'' of the issue, Stevens emphasized that ``we express no opinion about the wisdom'' of the line-item veto, and said ``we do not lightly conclude'' that Congress and the president violated the Constitution by enacting the law.

``We have, however, twice had full argument and briefing on the question and have concluded that our duty is clear,'' Stevens wrote, thus delivering the majority's bottom-line assertion of the Supreme Court's historic authority to define the limits of power held by other branches of government.

His opinion was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered an impassioned dissent, taking the rare step of reading parts of it aloud in court.

Charging that the court majority exhibited ``unrestrained zeal'' and ignored ``the constitutional limits of our jurisdiction,'' Scalia argued that line-item veto power was ``no broader than the discretion'' exercised over spending laws by every chief executive since George Washington.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer joined Scalia's dissent.

Congress traditionally has empowered presidents to choose not to spend some measure of appropriated money, Scalia wrote, citing extensive historic precedents. ``There is not a dime's worth of difference'' between that time-honored practice and the line-item veto law's permission for presidents to ``cancel a spending item,'' Scalia contended.

``The title of the Line Item Veto Act, which was perhaps designed to simplify for public comprehension, or perhaps merely to comply with the terms of a campaign pledge, has succeeded in faking out the Supreme Court,'' Scalia wrote. Because ``insofar as the substance of that action is concerned, it is no different from what Congress has permitted the president to do since the formation of the Union.''