Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act in 1998, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line-item veto power to the Executive Authority. First announcing his intent to seek such legislation in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address, President Bush sent a legislative ...
Paul Ryan and Russ Feingold introducing a line-item veto bill in 2007. In 1996, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. This act allowed the president to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures from appropriations bills instead of vetoing the entire bill and sending it back to ...
Enacted over the president's veto (14 Stat. 430). March 2, 1867: Vetoed H.R. 1143, an act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States. Overridden by House on March 2, 1867, 138–51 (126 votes needed). Overridden by Senate on March 2, 1867, 38–10 (32 votes needed). Enacted over the president's veto (14 Stat. 432).
The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an appeal from conservative states challenging California’s ability to establish strict vehicle emission rules that effectively set the standard for ...
United States: At the federal level, the president may veto bills passed by Congress, and Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. [62] A line-item veto was briefly enacted in the 1990s, but was declared an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers by the Supreme Court.
"The state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary ...
The California Supreme Court on Thursday took the rare step of removing a measure from the November ballot that would have made it harder to raise taxes, siding with Gov. Gavin Newsom by ruling ...
While upholding President Calvin Coolidge's pocket veto, the court said that the "determinative question is not whether it is a final adjournment of Congress or an interim adjournment but whether it is one that 'prevents' the President from returning the bill". In 1938, the Supreme Court reversed itself in part in Wright v.