[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SUPREME COURT'S LINE-ITEM VETO DECISION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today 
announced in its ruling in the consolidated cases of Clinton v. New 
York and Rubin v. Snake River Potato Growers that it has found the 
Line-item Veto Act to be unconstitutional. It did this by a vote of 6 
to 3. It is with great relief and thankfulness that I join with 
Senators Moynihan and Levin--and I am sure that if our former 
colleague, Senator Hatfield, were here he would join with us--in 
celebrating the Supreme Court's wise decision. Mr. President, the 
Founding Fathers created for us a vision, set down on parchment. Our 
Constitution embodies that vision, that dream of freedom, supported by 
the genius of practical structure which has come to be known as the 
checks and balances and separation of powers. If the fragile wings of 
the structure are ever impaired, then the dream can never again soar as 
high.

  Today, the Supreme Court has spared the birthright of all Americans 
for yet a while longer by striking down a colossal error made by the 
Congress when it passed the Line-Item Veto Act. For me and for those 
who have joined me in this fight, a long, difficult journey is happily 
ended. The wisdom of the framers has once again prevailed and the slow 
undoing of the people's liberties has been halted.
  Every year, we in this Nation spend billions upon billions of 
dollars, we expend precious manpower, we devise greater and more 
ingenious weapons, all for the sake of protecting ourselves, our way of 
life and our freedoms from foreign threats. And, yet, when it comes to 
the duty--and we all take that oath with our hand on the Holy Bible and 
our hand uplifted, we take that oath and say ``so help me, God'' that 
we will support and defend this Constitution. And so when it comes to 
the duty of protecting our Constitution, the living document which 
ensures the cherished liberties for which our forefathers gave their 
lives, we walked willingly into the friendly fire of the Line-Item Veto 
Act, enticed by political polls and grossly uninformed popular opinion.
  Now that the Supreme Court has found the Line-Item Veto Act to be 
unconstitutional, it is my fervent hope that the Senate will come to a 
new understanding and appreciation of our Constitution and the power of 
the purse as envisioned by the framers. Let us treat the Constitution 
with the reverence it is due, with a better understanding of what 
exactly is at stake when we carelessly meddle with our system of checks 
and balances and the separation of powers. If we disregard the lessons 
learned from this colossal blunder, we might just as well strike a 
match and hold that invaluable document to the flame. Unless we take 
care, it will be our liberties and those of our children and 
grandchildren that will finally go up in the thick black smoke of puny 
political ambition.
  Edmund Burke once observed that, ``abstract liberty, like other mere 
abstractions, is not to be found.''
  If we, who are entrusted with the safeguarding of the people's 
liberties--and that is what is involved here--are careless or callous 
or complacent, then those hard-won, cherished freedoms can run through 
our fingers like so many grains of sand. Let us all endeavor to take 
more to heart the awesome responsibility which service in this body 
conveys, and remember always that what has been won with such 
difficulty for us by those who sacrificed so much for our gain can be 
quickly and effortlessly squandered by less worthy keepers of that 
trust.
  Mr. President, let me read just a few brief extracts from the 
majority opinion. And that opinion was written by Mr. Justice Stevens.

       There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes 
     the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.

  That is elemental. I am editorializing now--that is elemental.
  Continuing with the opinion written by Mr. Justice Stevens, and 
concurred in by the Chief Justice and four other justices:

       What has emerged in these cases from the President's 
     exercise of his statutory cancellation powers, however, are 
     truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses of 
     Congress. They are not the product of the ``finely wrought'' 
     procedure that the Framers designed.

                          ____________________