{
  "id": "R41246",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41246",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 361868,
      "date": "2010-05-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T01:41:07.016250",
      "title": "The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: The Constitutionality of Congressional Term Limits and the Presidential Line Item Veto",
      "summary": "Justice John Paul Stevens authored the majority opinions in both U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton and Clinton v. City of New York, which struck down term limits for federal legislators and the federal Line Item Veto Act, respectively. While the Supreme Court seems unlikely to address the constitutionality of term limits or the line-item veto in the future, Justice Stevens\u2019s conclusion that the absence of constitutional provisions expressly authorizing the exercise of certain powers constitutes a denial of these powers seems likely to influence the Court in the future, particularly in cases involving what Justice Kennedy and others have characterized as \u201chorizontal\u201d or \u201cvertical\u201d separation of powers. Horizontal separation of powers questions involve the relationship between the three branches of the federal government (i.e., legislative, executive, judicial), while vertical separation of powers questions involve the relationship between the federal government, state governments, and individual citizens. In Term Limits, the majority held that states lack the power to impose term limits on Members of Congress because the Constitution grants them no such power. Similarly, in Clinton, the majority held that a federal statute allowing the President to \u201ccancel\u201d certain provisions of law was unconstitutional because \u201c[t]here is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President\u201d to do so. Under these precedents, it would appear that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to allow for either congressional term limits or the presidential line-item veto.\nThe opinions authored by Justice Stevens in Term Limits and Clinton are consistent with what commentators have characterized as his generally \u201cpro federalist\u201d approach to other issues, such as those involving the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. For a more in-depth discussion of his approach to federalism, see CRS Report R41244, The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Federalism Issues, by Kenneth R. Thomas.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41246",
          "sha1": "2aff5f0f32cbf9e62d27c175cf23d0bb5c56efe9",
          "filename": "files/20100518_R41246_2aff5f0f32cbf9e62d27c175cf23d0bb5c56efe9.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41246",
          "sha1": "60623c22ee4ee6337bfedbfcbfde2105e6c96338",
          "filename": "files/20100518_R41246_60623c22ee4ee6337bfedbfcbfde2105e6c96338.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}