Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be ...
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal ...
The court affirmed a lower court decision that the line-item veto was equivalent to the unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. [5] Before the ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times. [6] [7] [8] [9]
In addition to the vetoes below, House and Senate leaders ruled that Beshear did not have the legal authority to issue a line-item veto of House Bill 8 because it was a revenue, not appropriations ...
Still, the governor vetoed a raft of bills on the final day of the designated “veto break” period, ending with 21 bills completely vetoed and six different bills with line-item vetoes.
The line-item veto is an executive power the governor can exercise under Section 88 of the Kentucky Constitution. It gives governors the ability to line-item veto “appropriations bills.”
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the president the power of line-item veto, which President Bill Clinton applied to the federal budget 82 times [8] [9] before the law was struck down in 1998 by the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being in violation of the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The grant of a general line-item veto to the governor would have only a small practical effect.