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 implemented 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 ...
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. It was signed into law on April 9, 1996, but its effect was brief it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court just over two years later, in Clinton v.
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.
In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to declare the line-item veto unconstitutional. In Clinton v. City of New York ( 524 U.S. 417 (1998)), the court found the language of the Constitution required each bill presented to the president to be either approved or rejected as a whole.
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 [10] on the grounds of it being in violation of the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Navajo Election Administration sought help to update its voter registration system because current software and computers are at risk of crashing.