Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional ...
The line-item veto, also called the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that authorizes a chief executive to reject particular provisions of a bill enacted by a legislature without vetoing the entire bill. Many countries have different standards for invoking the line-item veto if it exists at all.
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 line-item vetoes include Beshear deleting the language sending $200 million for a federal grant matching program to the Department of Agriculture, a mistake made by the legislature in the ...
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 Pub. L. 104–130 (text) was a federal law of the United States that granted the President the power to line-item veto budget bills passed by Congress, but its effect was brief as the act was soon ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York. [1]
But that wasn’t the case for the earlier veto Bradley’s office cited. When signing the state budget this summer, Evers used a line-item veto to specifically remove the cut for that bracket.
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to nullify certain provisions of appropriations bills, and disallowed the use of funds from canceled provisions for offsetting deficit spending in other areas. At its passage, the Act was politically controversial, with many Democrats breaking with Clinton to oppose it.