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 ...
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 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]
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.
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 ...
Any amendments the convention recommends have to be approved by voters in an election. ... General Assembly term limits, a line-item veto, an inspector general, a lawmaker pay increase and ...
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.
Kansas Republicans had said Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s decision was unconstitutional, but state Attorney General Kris Kobach has decided against a lawsuit “at this time.”