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 ...
Senate Republicans fear President-elect Trump’s tax agenda could be derailed in the House by several potential land mines, including calls by some GOP lawmakers to raise corporate taxes and to ...
Congress, and the GOP, has changed since then-President Trump and Republicans crafted the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And while Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and GOP leadership are gunning to get a ...
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 ...
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.