Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Another judge attempts to make Congress do what’s right

Saturday, Feb. 21, 1998 | 3:46 a.m.

TEN DAYS AGO, when striking down the line item veto power of the president, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan wrote:

"Once a bill becomes law, it can only be repealed or amended through another, independent legislative enactment, which itself must conform with the requirements of Article I. ...

"The president cannot single-handedly revise the work of the other two participants in the law-making process, as he did here when he vetoed certain provisions of these statutes. ...

"The separation of powers into three coordinate branches is central to the principles on which this country was founded. The declared purpose of separating and dividing the powers of government was to 'diffuse power, the better to secure liberty.'

"The Line Item Veto Act impermissibly crosses the line between acceptable delegations of rule-making authority and unauthorized surrender to the president of an inherently legislative function, namely, the authority to permanently shape laws and package legislation. ..."

I'd say this language is very clear. Yet, a Los Angeles Times editorial whined and suggested: "If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, supporters of the line item veto must find another path to their goal. It is possible that the only sure way is to amend the Constitution itself. Perhaps the line item veto now has enough support that Congress would send such an amendment to the 50 states for ratification."

Wisely, both Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan foresaw the problems the line item veto had for small states and the Constitution. They voted against the law in 1990 and 1996. In 1996, Bryan told his colleagues: "The legislation gives the president the power to veto items for less-populous states, such as Nevada, in favor of items for larger states with more electoral votes."

In 1990, Reid gave fellow senators this example of line item veto possible abuses: "The president wants to send a message by picking an item of $10 million out of this Labor-HHS budget, for example. He does not want to do what President Bush did: be courageous and veto the whole appropriations bill. What he wants to do is send a message and veto a $10 million item. If a bill contains $10 million for a small state like Nevada, New Hampshire or South Dakota, it only makes political sense to go after the money provided to a small state with a few votes." Reid later pointed out how the threat of this power could be used to pressure legislators to change their votes on unrelated matters.

The Line Item Veto Act is not only bad for the Constitution and Nevada, it's the act of a lazy and gutless Congress. The members of that august body should face up to their responsibilities and eliminate unnecessary spending. Anything less is unacceptable.

In an earlier decision, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson wrote: "The Line Item Veto Act hands off to the president authority over fundamental legislative choices ... Congress has turned the constitutional division of responsibilities on its head."

As the L.A. Times says, it's now up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the nation's highest court rules against the law, there probably won't be many tears. Even many Republicans like Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, who supported it as a major plank in the 1994 GOP Contract with America, are having sincere doubts about it as a law.