Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 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]
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 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.
Individual Congressmembers lack the particularized interest required for standing for issues affecting the entire Congress, in this case the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. 7–2 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007
The Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), struck down as unconstitutional the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, holding that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause.
When Clinton arrived at the hotel, he asked to meet in Broaddrick's room instead and after he arrived, allegedly proceeded to violently rape her. Broaddrick alleges he bloodied her lip by biting it.
On April 27, 1998, Cooper argued the case Clinton v. City of New York. [26] In that case, the Supreme Court considered whether the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violated the Presentment Clause of Article I. Cooper argued this case on behalf of the City of New York.