Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide certain line item veto authority to the President.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 8
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Economics and Public Finance
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-01-14T17:40:04Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 8) proposes a constitutional amendment to grant the President limited authority to reduce specific appropriations (funding allocations) in bills or joint resolutions passed by Congress, aiming to enhance executive control over federal spending while maintaining congressional oversight.
Key Provisions
- Presidential Reduction Power (Section 1): When signing a bill or joint resolution containing appropriations, the President may choose to lower (but not eliminate entirely) a specific appropriation. The bill becomes law with this reduction applied.
- Notification and Congressional Review (Section 2):
- The President must notify Congress of the reduction within 10 days.
- Congress may vote to disapprove the reduction.
- If two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate vote to disapprove, the original appropriation amount is restored in the law.
- Ratification Process: The amendment would take effect if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years of congressional approval (requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to propose it).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Under the current U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 7), the President can only sign or veto entire bills, with no option to alter specific parts like appropriations. A 1996 federal law attempting to grant line-item veto power was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998 (Clinton v. City of New York) because it violated the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to amend laws unilaterally.
- This amendment would constitutionally embed a modified version of the line-item veto, limited to reductions in appropriations (not deletions or other changes), and include a strong congressional override mechanism to address past constitutional concerns.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Could lead to targeted cuts in funding for specific programs or projects, potentially streamlining budgets but risking disruptions to agency operations if reductions affect critical areas like defense, education, or social services.
- On Citizens: Might result in reduced federal spending on public programs (e.g., infrastructure or welfare), affecting access to services, but could also lower overall taxes or national debt by curbing "pork-barrel" spending (unnecessary local projects added to bills).
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though reductions in foreign aid or diplomatic funding could indirectly influence U.S. global commitments or alliances.
- Broader Fiscal Effects: Promotes more disciplined budgeting, potentially reducing wasteful spending, but depends on how the power is used.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- The President and Executive Branch: Gains new tool for fiscal influence without full veto power over bills.
- Congress (House and Senate): Retains primary spending authority but must act decisively (two-thirds vote) to override reductions, shifting some power dynamics.
- Federal Agencies and Programs: Face potential funding adjustments, affecting implementation of laws.
- Taxpayers and Citizens: Benefit from possible spending efficiencies but may see impacts on government services or entitlements.
- State Governments: Could influence federal grants or funding flows to states, requiring them to adapt to changes.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional Implications: Alters the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches by introducing a targeted veto mechanism directly into the Constitution, potentially resolving prior Supreme Court objections to statutory versions. It preserves Congress's supermajority override to avoid executive overreach.
- Legal Implications: If ratified, it would be immune to judicial invalidation on separation-of-powers grounds, but could invite future lawsuits over what constitutes a valid "reduction" or "appropriation."
- Political Implications: Likely to spark debates on executive authority versus congressional control, with supporters viewing it as a check on excessive spending and opponents fearing it empowers the President to undermine legislative priorities. Ratification would require broad bipartisan or cross-state support, given the high thresholds.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide certain line item veto authority to the President. — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (2 pages)