Ritz-Carlton Hotel Organisation Culture

Ritz-Carlton Hotel Organisation Culture Introduction The ability to establish a culture that invokes high value for the people working in an organization invokes intrinsic sense of identity, innovativeness, creativity and commitment that forms the main recipe for ultimate sustainability of services and profitability. Organizations leaders and scholars concur that people are the most important elements in an organization because they not only articulate the established policies but innovatively contribute to their holistic improvements through sustained experiences. This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of The Ritz-Carlton hotel culture, challenges in changing it and key lessons that can be learned by other organizations. i) Harrison-Handy model of organization culture Though scholars appear divided over the actual definition of the term ‘organization culture, they tend to agree that all organizations create unique operating systems that fit with their internal capacities and guided towards their objectives. The Ritz-Carlton organization culture can best be described through two subunits of the Harrison-Handy model. To begin with Mullin (2008, p. 21) explains that power culture reflects centrality of authority in a highly bureaucratic outline where orders define the expected targets based on the organization objectivity. On the other hand, the role culture creates a set of rules and guidelines that do not give employees the needed room for contributing to the management. Therefore, role and power culture as Aitken and Higgs (2010, pp. 109-111) concur with Campbell and Craig (2005, 491-493) provide a highly rigid mode of operation that obscures innovation while establishing barrier between the top management and junior staff. ii) Master servant orientation The Ritz- Carlton Hotel depicts a culture strongly based on master servant relationship where employees are expected to strictly follow the established code of conduct for the hotels. While expounding on Harrison-Handy model, Laurie (2007, p. 66) explains that though its application may be employed to create a less authoritative tone, the resulting cultural impacts remain unchanged. The notion of ‘ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentlemen is a working slogan but a principle that employees cannot fully associate with. The establishment of ‘very precise standards for treating consumers makes the employees a form of puppet that must follow specific values and guidelines without deviating from them. Owing to the long period of success, the management in the hotel has solidified strict demand for personal traits that one should have for success in such an industry. The code of behavior in the hotel is well written down and managers take no chance in enforcing it (case) . For instance, the smile is expected to come naturally (case). iii) Discourages individual innovations and creativity The Ritz- Carlton Hotels culture not only lacks the necessary room for innovation and creativity but strongly discourages their application. The aforementioned master servant relationship creates the view of inferiority to the employees; a consideration that largely discourages their voluntary input outside the management demands. The established values that have culminated to scripting expected behavior in the hotel, limits employees from introducing new concepts, ideologies or comparative connotations for improvements. Though the management has established a rewarding system, it might not invoke the necessary innovation due to lack of enough democratic space for them. As Harrison-Handy model of organization culture postulates, going against the established guidelines is often interpreted by the middle level managers to be a threat to them and therefore often scattered before considering it for implementation (Mullin, 2008, pp. 36-37). The managers in the hotel take nothing to chanc e and therefore emphasize on a fifteen minutes daily reminder of the expected code of conduct by the employees. iv) Reduced capacity to initiate and propel change. According to Mullin (2008, p. 31), organizations should embrace change that facilitates adoption of new management outsets to gather a competitive advantage over others and derive the expected sustainability. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel has maintained the key management and operation values that founders laid about a century ago (case). Though the hotel has been doing well, assimilation of change could have raised its current profitability to higher levels. Power culture in the Harrison-Handy model as William (2009, p. 541) indicates, fails to invoke the criticality of extended reference for change agents. As a result, the management becomes the sole source of visionary focus which reduces the overall ability to improve change strategies and creating identity with new propositions for all. It is from this consideration that the proposed changes in the year 2006 were seen to be a major deviation from the normal non-responsive operation mechanism in the hotel (case). a) Why do you think this type of culture might be important to a luxury hotel? Hospitality industry as Severt and Curtis (2008, pp. 121-122) explain, remains one of the most sensitive sectors and therefore demands greater care with critical assessments to beat the high competition. The Ritz- Carlton Hotels culture is therefore critical in a luxury hotel because it invokes better monitored coordination and maintenance of consistency in services delivery. By articulating strict rules and regulations that are unit-lined to customers satisfaction, luxury hotel is able to guarantee consumers the needed high quality services. Unlike in other sectors such as education, Severt and Curtis (2008, p. 125) add that hospitality industry require the luxury assurance taken to an even higher level. Creating a strong central authority in the hospitality industry forms particularistic trends in the management and therefore avoiding the uncertainties brought about by change application. Though change articulation in an organization is projected towards improvement, Sinha (2008, p. 63) concurs with Chenhall and Euske (2007, p. 634) conclusion that its articulation may culminate to key discontinuities in services delivery. Indeed, to inculcate new ideologies, it may require an external change agent, additional costs and assimilation of new code of conduct which may take time before being fully assimilated. Owing to the high sensitivity of hospitality industry, maintaining the power and role based culture reduces the possibility of creating many centers of authority experienced in other cultures. As a result, luxury hotels are able to maintain a highly responsive system to satisfy their clients and therefore sustain their repute and profitability. b) What might be the drawbacks of such a culture? Though the culture of power and role appear to work in luxury industry, it lacks the needed force for improvement. Most employees are enclosed in the roles procedures and within the established authority that suppress their personal contribution. The culture therefore lacks the needed checks that come inform of propositions for improvement either through comparison or visionary considerations. As Aitken and Higgs (2010, pp. 116-117) indicate, the culture lacks whole commitment of the employees since they do not identify with the authority, the institution or the rules laid for them. As a result, people under such cultures mostly act under pretense and therefore do not have the needed goodwill for the company. In such situations, Campbell and Craig (2005, p. 497) explain that they mostly contemplate shifting to other related occupations that appreciate them. In power and role based culture, one evident problem is that people do not exploit their full potential. The Ritz- Carlton Hotels management has maintained a scripted behavioral conduct that is often reminded to the employees every day (case). The emphasis of such orientation creates the sense that the advocated methods are the best and therefore achieved results could not have been any better. Campbell and Craig (2005, p. 490) argue that this culture is a key recipe for direct and indirect resistance by people in the organization. Though they might not directly indicate it due to fear of punitive measures, occurrence of trigger factors may be catastrophic. Particularly, simple conflicts may easily provide an outlet to the accumulated dissatisfaction; a consideration that could easily result to negative publicity and reduction in the overall profits. a) Challenges in implementing the cultural change Following a long time application of power and rule model in the company, the new culture might have encountered strong resistance to change. According to Kurt Lewins theory of organization change management, the freezing of the existing systems presents the existing managers authorities with a sense of loss as more autonomy is given to the lower level employees (Sinha, 2008, pp. 69-70). To the middle level managers, they resist this change to safeguard their roles (foreseeing application of the rules and supervising scripted behavior) because employees would have greater link with the top management while behavioral outsets would not require supervision. To articulate the new model of management at The Ritz- Carlton Hotels, the employees lacked the needed skills to implement the needed changes. Owing to the long time application of the old power and role model, many employees might have lacked the expected expanded view in relation to the new autonomy. According to contingency theory, the internal and external environment interacts to derive the needed focus for higher profitability (Laurie, 2007, pp. 36-37). However, most employees in the hotel might have coiled and stuck to the old methods not due to resistance, but due to lack of immediate alternatives after being in a closed model for along time. Unlike the old well scripted behavioral expectations, the new culture was hard coordinate and monitor at the beginning due to the high autonomy exercised by the people. According to Chenhall and Euske (2007, pp. 625-626), transformational leadership requires constant link and communication between the management and junior staff to maintain the needed bonding for greater cohesion. However, these bonds are built on trust, commitment and rewards in a system. Taking into consideration that this structure takes a lot of time to establish, changing the culture might have experienced partial discontinuity as teams and their operations, new reward schemes and communication modes were established. b) Maintaining the new culture In his view, William (2009, p. 537-539) explains that though changing an organization culture is the harder part of assimilating a new culture, its maintenance is very critical in that it determines the holistic sustainability of the company. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel maintained the better elements of the old system such as a happy guest driven by the services provided. As a result, the hotel was able to articulate the changes without negatively affecting the services provided to the consumers. In addition to that, the company increased the employees decision making autonomy and therefore encouraged naturally relaxed and innovative interaction with clients. According to transformation leadership theories, this autonomy and attachment to the management and operating system creates the needed identity for all; a consideration that invokes high creativity (Mullin, 2008, pp. 58-59). According to Robert Maslows theory of motivation, people will always struggle to get to the next higher level in the hierarchy of needs and ultimately, to self actualization (Gomez-Mejia, David and Robert, 2008, p. 88). The Ritz-Carlton Hotel therefore created this upward shift by articulating a highly motivating environment for employees. According to Carmine (2008) the management has solidified the employees involvement in decision making and therefore creating the sense of stability and satisfaction to them. As a result, customer satisfaction becomes easy to link with higher sustainability of the monetary and other benefits that employees derive from the system. One common aspect evident with new cultures that are people oriented is consideration for continued improvement. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel conducts frequent trainings to its employees to enrich their skills by creating new insights that are critical in maintaining high quality services to clients. According to American management Association (2008), The Ritz-Carlton Hotels management seeks highly experienced coaches and trainers in hospitality industry to impact new skills and therefore raisin the employees ability to make correct decisions in their duties. The case of The Ritz-Carlton Hotel brings out the critical role played by an organization culture in defining and guiding its overall operations for sustaining of its profits. Employees were brought out to be a key element when defining the culture of an organization and must be involved at all levels. Though the power and role cultures saw the company reap high profits, it was a major obstacle towards achievement higher level customer satisfaction and profitability. Employees could not go beyond the scripted behavioral demands. The Ritz-Carlton Hotels case further brings out the need for continued improvement in an organization as a critical cultural facet towards remaining relevant and therefore ahead of other competitors. Through cooperation of employees and management it is possible to maintain high level services for the clients. When employees get the sense that their management has bestowed high trust on them, they take greater responsibility oriented towards surpassing the set goals in a companys objectives. From the case, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel services remained unchanged even after withdrawing the highly authoritative culture. In any change articulation, organizations must recognize that there will always be some resistance and therefore must be effectively prepared to counter it. To concur with Severt and Curtis (2008, pp. 121-123) view, it is critical that organizations facilitate the change orientation in a manner that brings all the people aboard and therefore creating a highly acceptable final product. In a freezing-refreezing model, organizations must create the roadmap largely based on communication that facilitates addressing inherent concerns. Besides, organizations must take change to be a process and therefore expect it to take time before the actual results are identified. Though changing the culture is the ultimate choice, organizations must seek to incorporate the necessary ideals while creating a room for later improvement. The assimilated change model must be able to place the organization in a mobile note where both the employees and the management do not view the achievement of the positive results to be the end, but establish considerations to take the achievements step higher. Through professional training, teamwork and comparative orientations, organizations can be able to remain highly competitive and thereby maintaining high profitability. Conclusion From the above conclusion, this paper concludes by supporting the thesis statement, ‘the ability to establish a culture that invokes high value for the people working in an organization invokes intrinsic sense of identity, innovativeness, creativity and commitment that forms the main recipe for ultimate sustainability of services and profitability. It came out from the discussion that though The Ritz-Carlton Hotel had high returns, its power and role culture poorly invoked innovativeness and creativity. By effectively addressing the challenges evidenced by change application, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel was able to achieve the same results it achieved previously. Organizations seeking to change their cultures should therefore seek to incorporate peoples contribution to create the sense of continued improvement and thereby raise their profitability and sustainability.

Liability of Vessels for Collisions Caused at Sea: Case Study Essay

In the given case study a dispute will arise between the four parties to determine the liability of each vessel for multiple collisions caused at sea. In summary, the facts are that the Flipper was crossing the Britannia Straits traffic separation scheme but was not making proper use of the crossing points. The Willie, a bulk oil carrier which was adhering to the scheme, spotted the Flipper and foresaw the risk of collision so the captain issued a series of warnings. The Flipper ignored these warnings thinking she had enough time to pass. The Willie, realising she was being ignored made a turn for starboard creating a wash which capsized the Flipper and a nearby yacht. Moments later the Orca, which was insufficiently crewed and had faulty navigation equipment collided with the semi-submerged Flipper. The captain of the Orca refused salvage assistance thinking he could return the ship to the port for repairs himself. However, the vessel sunk before it could reach safety. In this essay I am going to advise all four parties as to their likely liability for the collision and the defences and counter claims available. In doing this I will make reference to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (hereafter referred to as the collision regulations) and the common and statute law regarding causation. By advising the parties according to these legal instruments they can determine their likely liability in court. I will start by establishing which vessels caused the collisions. It should be noted that although it was the misconduct of the crew members that led to the collision, the ship owner will still be held vicariously liable unless he can prove the acts of the crew constituted a ‘frolic of their own’, s... ... from its collision with the Flipper was still the operating cause of the sinking therefore the Flipper and the Willie must also bear some liability. In conclusion it is likely that the courts will apportion liability as such; the Flipper and the Willie will be found 80% and 20% liable respectively. However, if it is proved that the Willie acted on scanty radar information in breach of regulation 7(c) then the likely apportionment will be 50/50 as both vessels would equally be responsible for the collision. This is liability for damage caused to the Flipper, the Willie and the private yacht. The owners of the Orca are likely to take the bulk of responsibility for their own collision as the acts of the other vessels are far too remote for them to assume responsibility, liability is likely to be apportioned at 90% to the Orca and 10% between the Flipper and Willie.

Corruption of Power †Macbeth Essay

Shakespeare’s bloody and tragic play Macbeth, written in the seventeenth century, portrays blind ambition, appearances can be deceiving and corruption of power. It follows the reasons behind Macbeth’s downfall. The play analyzes how other outside forces can easily change the path of ones desires and decisions. The witches’ intrusion, Lady Macbeth’s manipulation and Macbeth’s dark desires all interfere and manipulate Macbeth’s decisions. He goes from being praised as a noble soldier to a traitor and corrupt king. In the play, Macbeth commits many terrible crimes; however he is solely not responsible for all of them. The outside factors manipulate his decisions and are responsible for his downfall at the end. To begin, the witches’ manipulate Macbeth early in the play by strongly influencing his decisions. The witches scheme to tell Macbeth his fate after a battle has is lost and won. While traveling to King Duncan’s castle Macbeth and Banquo stumble upon the three witches. The first witch greets Macbeth with his current title as the Thane of Glamis, the second witch greets Macbeth as the Thane of Cawdor, and the last witch greets Macbeth as, â€Å"All hail Macbeth that shalt be king hereafter† (1. ii. 53). The greetings are prophecies that plant a negative seed of blind ambition in Macbeth’s thoughts and the predictions are an approach on the witches’ behalf to establish trust. Soon after the witches’ disappear, two Scottish Nobles – Angus and Ross – inform Macbeth of his new title as the Thane of Cawdor in addition to his current title as Thane of Glamis. The news makes Macbeth hopeful and invokes blind ambition, that he may become king. The prediction may come true easily as the Thane of Cawdor title did without causing harm to anyone. Once Macbeth actually becomes King, the pressure and guilt of his actions start to build. He starts to worry and is insecure about his throne because the witches also predict that Banquo’s descendants will become king. He decides to persuade two murders to commit the monstrous crime of murdering his good friend. Macbeth intends to murder Banquo and his son Fleance, because they pose a great threat to his crown. After Macbeth is successful in persuading the two murders he orders the two murders, â€Å"to leave no rubs nor botches in the work/ Fleance, his son, that keeps him company,/ Whose absence is no less material to me† (3. . 153-155). Macbeth shows fear toward the prediction the witches foretold Banquo and this pushes him to murder once again. Moreover, the prediction was not meant directly at Banquo but for his descendants to rule Scotland as future kings. Macbeth does not want this because he desires his own descendents to become future kings. Banquo, and his son Fleance are a mere obstacle that need removing and Macbeth shows no concern or remorse in his decision to murder his dear companion Banquo and his son. Later, Macbeth receives news about Banquo’s death and Fleance’s escape is relief however, it is short lived when Macbeth starts to see the ghost of Banquo. Macbeth is horrified and scared which leads him to the decision of visiting the three witches for answers. Macbeth is feeling insecure and fears Fleance returning and taking the throne away from him. There in a cave, the witches call upon their masters, the three apparitions to answer Macbeth’s request for information. The first apparition, an armed head, informs Macbeth to beware of Macduff. The second apparition, a bloody child, advises Macbeth to be secure and not worry, because any man born from a woman can not hurt Macbeth. Macbeth laughs at this apparition’s prediction because every man is born from a woman and the second apparition’s prediction gives him more confidence and arrogance. Last of all, the final apparition, a crowned child with a tree in its hand, tells Macbeth to be proud and not fearful because he cannot be vanquished â€Å"until/ Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill/ Shall come against him† (4. i. 106-107). Macbeth is delighted to hear this prediction from the third apparition because he knows trees can not move and this information gives Macbeth the confidence he was seeking for in order to feel secure about his position and his throne can not be taken away. He feels as if no one can harm him. Although the apparitions are correct, the witches have twisted the truth for Macbeth to feel invincible and confident on the decisions he is making to cause him harm in the near future. Secondly, Lady Macbeth’s blind ambition and false appearance take part in further altering Macbeth’s decisions. Lady Macbeth reads Macbeth’s letter and she immediately starts to plot King Duncan’s murder so the witches’ prophecies can her husbands desires can become true. She knows Macbeth is, â€Å"too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness/†¦ That wouldst thou holily; wouldst not play false/ And yet wouldst wrongly win† (1. V. 17-23). Lady is aware her husband Macbeth is too noble and innocent to hurt an individual for his own personal gain. She knows she will have to persuade Macbeth to murder Duncan in order for him to become king. Later, during the congratulatory dinner, Lady Macbeth convinces a hesitant Macbeth to execute Duncan. At first, Macbeth is hesitant because he thinks he is double crossing trust with the king, he is his kinsman, and tonight Duncan is his guest. Moreover, Duncan has done no wrong to deserve death. Macbeth confesses to Lady Macbeth he can not murder Duncan however, Lady Macbeth says, â€Å"Art thou afeard/†¦Wouldst thou have that/ Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life/And live a coward in thine own esteem† (1. vii. 43-47). Lady Macbeth is challenging his manhood by calling him a coward. She is manipulating Macbeth by playing with his insecurities and leaving him confused and in a vulnerable state. Lady Macbeth takes advantage of the moment and convinces Macbeth to murder Duncan to prove he is a man and worthy of his manhood. As the dinner goes on, Lady Macbeth keeps up a perfect facade of an innocent, gentle host dressed in white gown. However, she is deceiving everybody because as the guards drink and party the night away she laces their drinks to knock them. Therefore, later the blame of Duncan’s murder can be put on their heads. After midnight, Macbeth murders Duncan and he is mortified and paranoid. Macbeth is disgusted at himself however, Lady Macbeth convinces him â€Å"My hands are of your color, but I shame/ To wear a heart so white/†¦ A little water clears us of this deed† (2. ii. 83-87). She manipulates Macbeth in thinking the murder of Duncan is just a step to complete his desires. She completes the murder and helps Macbeth wash his hands as well as hers. She reassures him they will not be caught because she cleverly drugged and put the bloody draggers in the guard’s hands. In addition, explains their cover story as being asleep while this dreadful deed took place. Moreover, Lady Macbeth uses her blind ambition and false appearance to manipulate Macbeth’s decisions and deceive the individuals around them to achieve Macbeth’s desires and complete the witches’ prophecies. Thirdly, Macbeth’s dark desires start to transform Macbeth from a noble soldier to a tyrant and a corrupt king as a result, of the manipulation from the witches’ and blind ambition from his wife – Lady Macbeth. At the beginning of the play Macbeth is praised for successfully vanquishing the enemy and his army alongside his loyal companion and solider, Banquo. After the battle, King Duncan praises Macbeth as, â€Å"O valiant cousin, worthy gentleman† (1. ii. 26). The praise gives Macbeth great respect and honour because ‘cousin’ is referred to an individual who is highly trusted and respected. Macbeth is praised because of his respectful deeds of protecting the king and eliminating the enemy threat. The good words Duncan says to Macbeth honour him in a positive way. However, soon after the witches tell Macbeth the prophecies; the second prophecy becomes true and he is awarded the tile of Thane of Cawdor. Macbeth travels to King Duncan’s castle to let him know of his appreciation towards the kind gesture. However, at the castle Macbeth’s desires start to change. Duncan announces his eldest son, Malcolm, will be the heir to the throne after his passing away. Macbeth says in an aside, â€Å"Stars, hide your fires; / Let not light see black and deep desires† (1. iv. 57-58). The seed that the witches’ are responsible for planting inside of Macbeth’s noble thoughts earlier starts to evolve into less noble thoughts of becoming king. Now Macbeth is starting to feel jealous towards Malcolm. He tries to convince himself that such negative thoughts are not good and should not remain in his mind any further. Moreover, Macbeth is scared and hopes no one is aware of his negative thoughts towards Malcolm. Moreover, Macbeth now carries the burdens of two murders; of King Duncan, and his good friend Banquo. However, he starts to feels insecure once again due to the apparition’s prediction of being aware of Macduff. Macbeth states, â€Å"From this moment/ The very firstlings of my heart shall be/ The firstlings of my hand† (4. . 166-168), and orders in a rushed decision to execute every living soul in Macduff’s castle so he can sleep better at night. The irrational order to slaughter innocent people in Macduff’s castle proves how Macbeth is abusing his power of king. Macbeth is punishing Macduff’s innocent family for Macduff’s treason. However, Macduff’s family is not even aware of Macduff’s decisions and treason. Macbeth s ays he does not care what he does or how it will affect the others around him as long as it will help him sleep better at night. This proves Macbeth is no longer noble but a tyrant and corrupt king. Furthermore, the changes Macbeth undergoes, from a noble solider to a tyrant and corrupt king occur due to his dark desires; his decisions were affected by the witches’ manipulation and by his wife, Lady Macbeth’s blind ambition. To conclude, Macbeth is not responsible for all his terrible crimes he commits throughout the play. The witches’ manipulation, his wife – Lady Macbeth’s blind ambition and Macbeth’s desires hinder with noble Macbeth’s decisions and cause him to become Tyrant and Black Macbeth. At the beginning of the play he is the great and noble solider praised by King Duncan, but later transforms to a psychotic and corrupt king. He killed innocent people to get to his position as king and to further secure it. Furthermore, Shakespeare portrays in his play Macbeth, blind ambition, appearances can be deceiving and corruption of power and how they can be outside forces contributing to one’s downfall. In Macbeth’s case, outside forces influence his decisions and ultimately lead to his destruction.

Line Item Veto and Why Presidents Still Cannot Do It

In the United States government, the line-item veto is the right of the chief executive to nullify or cancel individual provisions bills—usually budget appropriations bills—without vetoing the entire bill. Like regular vetoes, line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of being overridden by the legislative body. While many state governors have line-item veto power, the President of the United States does not. The line item veto is exactly what you might do when your grocery tab runs to $20.00, but you only have $15.00 on you. Instead of adding to your total debt by paying with a credit card, you put back $5.00 worth of items you don’t really need. The line item veto — the power to not buy unneeded items — is a power U.S. presidents have long wanted but have just as long been denied. The line-item veto, sometimes called the partial veto, is a type of veto that would give the President of the United States the power to cancel an individual provision or provisions - line-items - in spending, or appropriations bills, without vetoing the entire bill. Like traditional presidential vetoes, a line-item veto could be overridden by Congress. Line Item Veto Pros and Cons Proponents of the line-item veto argue that it would allow the president to cut wasteful pork barrel or earmark spending from the federal budget.Opponents argue that it would continue a trend of increasing the power of the executive branch of government at the expense of the legislative branch. Opponents also argue, and the Supreme Court has agreed, that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. In addition, they say it would not reduce wasteful spending and could even make it worse. History of the Line-Item Veto Virtually every president since Ulysses S. Grant has asked Congress for line-veto power. President Clinton actually got but did not keep it long.On April 9, 1996, former President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which had been championed through Congress by Senators Bob Dole (R-Kansas), and John McCain (R-Arizona), with the support of several Democrats. On August 11, 1997, President Clinton used the line-item veto for the first time to cut three measures from an expansive spending and taxation bill. At the bills signing ceremony, Clinton declared the selective veto a cost-cutting breakthrough and a victory over Washington lobbyists and special interest groups. From now on, presidents will be able to say no to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say yes to vital legislation, said President Clinton. But, from now on wasnt for long at all. Clinton used the line-item veto two more times in 1997, cutting one measure from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Almost immediately, groups aggrieved by the action, including the City of New York, challenged the line-item veto law in court. On February 12, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the 1996 Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional, and the Clinton administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling issued on June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court, in the case of Clinton v. City of New York upheld the District Courts decision, overturning the 1996 Line Item Veto Act as a violation of the Presentment Clause, (Article I, Section 7), of the U.S. Constitution. By the time the Supreme Court took the power away from him, President Clinton has used the line-item veto to cut 82 items from 11 spending bills. While Congress overrode 38 of Clintons line-item vetoes, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 44 line-item vetoes that stood saved the government almost $2 billion. Why is the Line-Item Veto Unconstitutional? The Constitutions Presentment Clause cited by the Supreme Court spells out the basic legislative process by declaring that any bill, before being presented to the president for his or her signature, must have been passed by both the Senate and the House. In using the line-item veto to delete individual measures, the president is actually amending bills, a legislative power granted exclusively to Congress by the Constitution. In the courts majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes. The court also held that the line-item veto violated the principles of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government. In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the undeniable effects of the line-item veto were to enhance the Presidents power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another. Congressmen and Senators Object to Line-Item Veto Historically, most members of the U.S. Congress have opposed a constitutional amendment granting the president a permanent line-item veto. Lawmakers rightfully fear the power would enable the president to veto their earmark or â€Å"pork barrel† projects they have traditionally added to the appropriations bills of the annual federal budget. In this manner, the president could use the line-item veto to punish members of Congress who have opposed his or her policy, thus bypassing the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government.