In this case, the DSG Judiciary struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional and upheld the power of the president to rescind a veto. This ruling holds that the DSG Constitution does not give the DSG President the power of a line-item veto and that neither the Constitution nor any other By-Law or statute restrict the President’s power to rescind a veto.
On April 25, 2016, Tanner Lockhead and John Guarco filed a petition with the Judiciary alleging the veto issued by President Mecklai constituted an unconstitutional line-item veto concerning the Annual Budget. The petitioners requested that the veto be declared unconstitutional and the Annual Budget as approved by the Senate be considered subject to no presidential veto.
On April 20, 2016, the Senate passed an amendment to the Annual Budget allocating $20,000 for funding the Chanticleer. The Senate then approved the Annual Budget in a majority vote. On April 24, President Mecklai issued a formal veto of the $20,000 allocation to the Chanticleer without any justification for striking the funding. On April 25, President Mecklai issued a second veto concerning the same $20,000 of funding including a justification. On April 25, President Mecklai issued a third veto, this one concerning the entire Annual Budget and including a justification. On April 26, President Mecklai formally rescinded the third veto.
Which veto is legally in action? Do the first and second veto constitute line-item vetoes?
Application of the Powers of the Judiciary The DSG Judiciary is authorized to rule in this case pursuant to Article V, Section 5, Clause A: “The Judiciary shall decide cases in which the DSG or an officer of the DSG in an official capacity is a party…” because the DSG President was the respondent in this case.
On the conflicting vetoes The Judiciary finds that nothing restricts the President’s authority to rescind a veto, therefore the third veto issued is not legally in action. Furthermore, nothing restricts the President’s authority to issue multiple vetoes concerning the same piece of legislation, therefore the second veto issued is legal. The Judiciary also finds that the first veto issued did not contain a justification as required by Article 4, Section 5 of the Constitution making it unconstitutional, and therefore the first veto is not legal. This leaves exclusively the second veto in question.
On the second veto as a line-item veto The judiciary finds that the second veto constituted a line-item veto as it only concerned a single portion of a much larger piece of legislation. The Judiciary further finds that, in line with jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, line-item vetoes are unconstitutional unless the power is explicitly given to the executive in question. Therefore, the second veto issued by President Mecklai is unconstitutional.
Conclusion The DSG President does not have the power to issue line-item vetoes. The only way this power could be granted is through explicit amendment to the Constitution or relevant By-Law by the Senate. As of the issuance of the decision there was no veto in effect for the Annual Budget, but it still needed to be signed into law by the President as laid out in the Constitution.