Clinton v. City of New York of 1998 was a legal case that involved the President of the United States and City of New York. The US Supreme Court granted partial veto to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which meant that certain points of the bill can be rejected without conducting a full veto of the bill.
Clinton v. City of New York significance is that the given decision by the Supreme Court of the United States was based on the fact that United States Constitution’s Presentment Law was violated by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The primary concern was based on the notion that the President of the United States should not have a power to partially repeal and amend particular provisions of a formal written enactments. It was mainly manifested in the president’s ability to disallow and dismiss certain budget allocation funds, which resulted in a spending deficit in a number of regions. In the first case, a member of a Republican Party Mark Hatfield sued the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, because it was considered by him as unconstitutional. However, he was not able to provide a sufficient basis to demonstrate that the act was violating the US Constitution. Thus, the court ruled as the suit being dismissed, because specific harmful and damaging effects of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was not fully shown.
The next instance of the Clinton v. City of New York City case was influenced by the case of the City of New York and the case of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The given two parties were supplemented by incidents that occurred in the health care sector, where a number of organizations were reporting the overall effect of the act resulted in the injury and harm. The latter was caused by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, where particular set of monetary provisions were cancelled and rejected by the President of the United States of America Bill Clinton, which led liability eliminations. In addition, farmers reported alleged injury, which was the result of reduced tax cuts and provision cancellations by the President. These incidents were only possible to the fact that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave a full power for Bill Clinton to legally reject and nullify certain set of provisions without vetoing the entire bill.
The unconstitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was ruled by the Supreme Court, because the Presentment Clause in the Constitution specifies that the President of the United States must only be able to either reject or approve a bill entirely. However, Anthony McLeod Kennedy concurred his opinion to recognize that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 is constitutional. The reason behind his assertion is that the act did not go against individual liberty principles. In addition, Kennedy’s opinion included that the given act allowed the President to have more power to punish a certain group and assist another due to the general financial flexibility that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 provides. Therefore, Clinton v. City of New York summary is that one party argued the partial veto being unconstitutional because it gives the President of the United States of America more power than the United States Constitution outlines. However, the opposing party stated that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 will extend the President’s power to reward beneficiary groups and ignore others.