We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.

Advertiser Disclosure

Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

How We Make Money

We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently from our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

What is a Line Item Veto?

Tricia Christensen
By
Updated Mar 06, 2024
Our promise to you
HistoricalIndex is dedicated to creating trustworthy, high-quality content that always prioritizes transparency, integrity, and inclusivity above all else. Our ensure that our content creation and review process includes rigorous fact-checking, evidence-based, and continual updates to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

Editorial Standards

At HistoricalIndex, we are committed to creating content that you can trust. Our editorial process is designed to ensure that every piece of content we publish is accurate, reliable, and informative.

Our team of experienced writers and editors follows a strict set of guidelines to ensure the highest quality content. We conduct thorough research, fact-check all information, and rely on credible sources to back up our claims. Our content is reviewed by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy and clarity.

We believe in transparency and maintain editorial independence from our advertisers. Our team does not receive direct compensation from advertisers, allowing us to create unbiased content that prioritizes your interests.

A line item veto is the ability given to a governor or leader of a country to reject certain portions of a bill that comes before the leader to be signed into law. This power is widely used by most governors of states in the US, and it is one frequently requested by the President of the US (POTUS). Congress briefly granted line item veto powers to President Clinton in 1996, but the ability to reject parts of a bill was challenged by the courts and declared unconstitutional. Those opposing the line item veto claim it gives the president and the executive branch of the government too much power.

The reason why the line item veto remains so important a topic of discussion is due to the predominantly two-party system in the US House and Senate. There are a few senators and representatives who are independent, or who are elected under another party affiliation, but most of them are either Democrats or Republicans. Since these two parties often represent opposite sides of the political spectrum, a near-even split of the two parties in either House can mean that certain bills could never get passed. In order to create easier passage of a bill, a lot of political wheeling and dealing may occur, with various senators or representatives adding on things to the bill that don’t really have much to do with it. A senator may agree to support a bill, particularly if it allows him or her special funding for pet projects, or creates other legislation that he or she does support.

If the POTUS were granted line item veto ability, much of this political “dealing” would fall by the wayside. The president could approve the original bill and veto any special deals made that resulted in a majority vote. Congress knows this full well, and knows that it would be much harder to garner support for a bill if concessions can’t be offered to the other political party. Other members of Congress might guarantee any requests for funding or other provisions of the bill, but there would be no guarantee from the president that he would approve these requests or provisions. In fact, the POTUS would likely not approve such requests, especially if they seemed out of step with his own political aims.

Giving line item veto status to the POTUS could result in very few bills ever being made into law, especially if either the House or the Senate has a nearly tied number of members or a majority of members from a single political party. For instance, if the House is 75% Republican and the Senate is 75% Democrat, it would be extremely difficult to get any bills passed that were in any way considered partisan. It should be noted that sometimes members of political parties almost unanimously support passage of a bill and do not vote along party lines.

On the other hand, there are 43 states in the US that give line item veto ability to their governors. Those supporting giving this power to the POTUS suggest that governors tend to not abuse their authority, and that bills still get enacted regularly in these states. Supporters further argue that this power prompts greater cooperation in state legislative bodies to create laws that will not be subject to partial vetoes. Those against giving this power to the POTUS counter argue that it is simply too much power for the executive branch of the government to hold, and it allows the president to act in an autocratic rather than a democratic fashion.

HistoricalIndex is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Tricia Christensen
By Tricia Christensen , Writer
With a Literature degree from Sonoma State University and years of experience as a HistoricalIndex contributor, Tricia Christensen is based in Northern California and brings a wealth of knowledge and passion to her writing. Her wide-ranging interests include reading, writing, medicine, art, film, history, politics, ethics, and religion, all of which she incorporates into her informative articles. Tricia is currently working on her first novel.

Discussion Comments

By anon306316 — On Nov 29, 2012

@Suzy: Yes Clinton did have a budget surplus in his last term, but this was more due to the Republican takeover of congress and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" agenda, which cut spending.

By anon122562 — On Oct 28, 2010

president bush never had that power. i wish he did.

By anon19050 — On Oct 04, 2008

The line-item veto bill was passed in 2006. Some argued that it had given President Bush unlimited power. I read somewhere when Bill Clinton was given this power of the line-item veto by Congress throughout 1997 and part of 1998 [before it was struck down by the Supreme Court] that according to the Congressional Budget Office, during that period Clinton canceled 82 spending and tax provisions that reduced the deficit by less than $600 million over five years. When Clinton left office there was a surplus. How has this power that was handed over to Bush come to have a different effect placing our country into high deficit and near bankruptcy? What went wrong? I'm baffled. --Suzy

Tricia Christensen

Tricia Christensen

Writer

With a Literature degree from Sonoma State University and years of experience as a HistoricalIndex contributor, Tricia...
Read more
HistoricalIndex, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

HistoricalIndex, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.