Con Law ISeparation of Powers

Bicameralism, Presentment and the Line-Item Veto

INS v. Chadha (1983) struck down the one-house legislative veto because lawmaking requires passage by both houses and presentment to the President; Clinton v. City of New York (1998) struck down the Line Item Veto Act for letting the President cancel parts of signed laws.

Not started Jump to practice

You traced how a bill becomes a law in Civics and Government. Article I, Section 7 makes that process a requirement: every bill must pass both houses (bicameralism) and be presented to the President to sign or veto (presentment). Two famous cases show what happens when Congress tries a shortcut.

The only road to a federal law: both houses, then the President.

Why it works

Why insist on the cumbersome process? The framers made lawmaking hard on purpose. Bicameralism forces agreement between two bodies elected differently; presentment lets the President, elected by the whole nation, check Congress. Each step protects liberty by making it harder to pass laws hastily or for narrow interests. If Congress could act with legal effect through one house alone, it would escape those checks.

Key idea

INS v. Chadha (1983) struck down the one-house legislative veto: lawmaking requires passage by both houses and presentment to the President. Clinton v. City of New York (1998) struck down the Line Item Veto Act: canceling parts of signed laws amends them without Article I's process.

Worked example: Is it "legislative"?

Which of these must go through bicameralism and presentment? (a) The House passes a resolution honoring a sports team. (b) The Senate confirms a cabinet nominee. (c) One house votes to overturn an agency rule, with legal effect.
  1. (a) A simple resolution with no legal effect on anyone's rights: no.
  2. (b) The Constitution expressly gives the Senate alone the power to confirm: no (Chadha listed such exceptions).
  3. (c) Changing legal rights and duties by one house alone: yes, so it is invalid as a one-house act.

Answer: Only (c). Congress can still overturn rules by passing a joint resolution through both houses and presenting it to the President, as the Congressional Review Act provides.

Worked example: Clinton's cancellations and the veto

How is a line-item cancellation different from a regular veto?
  1. A veto happens before a bill becomes law; Congress can override it by two-thirds of each house.
  2. A cancellation happened after the President signed the bill, changing a law already in force.
  3. Changing a law requires a new law passed through Article I, Section 7.

Answer: A veto rejects a whole bill before enactment; a cancellation amends an enacted law, which only Congress can do through the full process.

Common mistake

Thinking the line-item veto was struck down as too much power for Congress. It was struck down because canceling parts of a law amounts to amending it without following Article I's process, giving the President a power the Constitution does not. Justice Kennedy's concurrence added that it also threatened liberty by concentrating power. Check which branch gained power and which procedure was skipped.

Related: in Bowsher v. Synar (1986), the Court held that Congress may not keep for itself the removal of an officer (the Comptroller General) who carries out the laws. Read Madison on the purposes of the two houses in Federalist No. 62 and Hamilton on the veto in Federalist No. 73.

This is an educational course, not legal advice.

Practice

Pass with 3 right answers, the last 2 in a row. Each right answer earns 3 XP.

Loading practice…

Builds on

Leads to

Sources and further reading

@teddyrookbook GitHub