Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act in 1998, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line-item veto power to the Executive Authority. First announcing his intent to seek such legislation in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address, President Bush sent a legislative ...
A bill that is passed by both houses of Congress is presented to the president. Presidents approve of legislation by signing it into law. If the president does not approve of the bill and chooses not to sign, they may return it unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while Congress is in session.
Enacted over the president's veto (14 Stat. 430). March 2, 1867: Vetoed H.R. 1143, an act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States. Overridden by House on March 2, 1867, 138–51 (126 votes needed). Overridden by Senate on March 2, 1867, 38–10 (32 votes needed). Enacted over the president's veto (14 Stat. 432).
United States: At the federal level, the president may veto bills passed by Congress, and Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. [62] A line-item veto was briefly enacted in the 1990s, but was declared an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers by the Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court on Thursday took the rare step of removing a measure from the November ballot that would have made it harder to raise taxes, siding with Gov. Gavin Newsom by ruling ...
While upholding President Calvin Coolidge's pocket veto, the court said that the "determinative question is not whether it is a final adjournment of Congress or an interim adjournment but whether it is one that 'prevents' the President from returning the bill". In 1938, the Supreme Court reversed itself in part in Wright v.
"The state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary ...
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case, Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, by summer. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court to hear challenge to CA's move to phase ...