Editorials
Friday, June 26, 1998

The line-item veto is
worth an amendment

THE balance of power between the White House and Congress was not greatly altered by President Clinton's use of the line-item veto authorized by Congress last year. Nor will the Supreme Court's striking down of the law be a heavy blow to executive power. However, a president's authority to scrape special-interest pork from spending bills serves the public interest and is worthy of a constitutional amendment.

Without the line-item veto, presidents are forced to accept items they oppose because the bills contain other provisions they feel they need. Legislators tack items that would never survive on their own onto essential measures. Congress passed the line-item veto legislation as part of the Republican Contract with America, the only part of the "contract" that Clinton liked.

Since then Clinton has used it 82 times to reduce last year's $1.7 trillion budget by $1 billion. The law gave Congress five days to override a line-item veto, and it restored $355 million in 38 construction and military expenditures.

Senate sponsors of the line-item veto law immediately drew up new legislation following the Supreme Court's action, but their remedy appears to be cumbersome. A constitutional amendment would be simpler and probably would entail broader veto power; the law struck down by the high court was limited to discretionary budget items, new direct spending or limited tax benefits affecting a small number of taxpayers.

The Supreme Court reasoned that bills signed into law after a president exercises line-item vetoes differ from bills passed by the House and Senate, tainting the system of the president signing into law legislation approved by Congress. That is why the court's rejection of the law came as no surprise to constitutional experts.

The limitations in the legislation approved last year came about because a Republican Congress was reluctant to give power to a Democratic president. A constitutional amendment authorizing a line-item veto uncluttered by partisan motivations would provide presidents with a valuable tool that many governors already possess.

Attorneys and clients

AMERICANS always have known they can tell their attorneys everything with the assurance that the information never will be divulged without permission. But how long is never? The Supreme Court now has answered the question: Never is forever, not expiring even after the client has.

Kenneth Starr wanted a different answer. The Whitewater special counsel sought three pages of notes taken by Washington lawyer James Hamilton during a meeting with client Vincent Foster, an aide to President Clinton, nine days before Foster committed suicide in 1993. According to a draft memo by another White House aide, Foster had spoken to Hillary Rodham Clinton about firings in the White House travel office, and Foster's conversation with Hamilton is believed to have focused on those firings. Starr is trying to determine if Mrs. Clinton had a role in the firings.

The attorney-client privilege is nearly absolute, the only exception being if the client informs the attorney about engagement in ongoing criminal or fraudulent activity. If the privilege were to be overridden by other interests -- dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested exculpatory evidence for a criminal defendant or "a compelling law-enforcement need for information" -- it would soon evaporate.

The court's ruling was a defeat for Starr but an important victory for the deceased, including -- besides Foster -- Lizzie Borden, whose papers from the 106-year-old case of the hatchet murders of her parents remain tucked in the vault of the law firm that won her acquittal.

Like other privileges, such as spousal, doctor-patient and priest-confessor, the confidentiality of attorney-client communications should not be subject to balancing tests. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has given Americans assurance that whatever they tell their lawyers will remain between the two of them, even as they rest in peace.

Child safety law

THERE can't be any guarantees, of course, but the law signed by Governor Cayetano Wednesday makes it less likely that the tragedy of Reubyne Buentipo Jr. will be repeated. Reubyne, 4, fell into a coma last summer after beatings suffered following his return to his mother. She has been charged with attempted murder. Doctors do not expect the child to recover from his vegetative condition.

The new law requires social agencies, doctors and court officials to give the highest priority to the child's safety -- not family reunification -- in deciding whether to return him or her to previously abusive parents. It has sometimes seemed that officials put too much emphasis on family reunification.

The law also mandates faster action in putting abused children into permanent homes, makes it easier for the state to prevent children from being returned to unsafe situations, requires that every child receive a comprehensive medical and behavioral assessment when removed from a home, makes it easier for foster parents to obtain medical records and allows physicians to share confidential information about abused children with each other.

The law has the endorsement of Susan Chandler, director of the Department of Human Services, which was criticized for returning Reubyne to his mother. The case was seen by critics as typifying misplaced priorities of social workers in making such decisions. With the increased emphasis on child safety now embodied in the law, the department must make sure that Child Protective Services workers understand and comply.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor