Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The governors of 11 states and Puerto Rico have some form of pocket veto. [37] Reduction veto Allows a governor to reduce the amounts budgeted for spending items. Reductions can be overridden by the legislature. [35] Package veto Allows a governor to veto an entire bill. Package vetoes can be overridden by the legislature. [35]
The legislative veto provision found in federal legislation took several forms. Some laws established a veto procedure that required a simple resolution passed by a majority vote of one chamber of Congress. Other laws required a concurrent resolution passed by both the House and the Senate. Some statutes made the veto process more difficult by ...
A veto player is a political actor who has the ability to stop a change from the status quo. [141] There are institutional veto players, whose consent is required by constitution or statute; for example, in US federal legislation, the veto players are the House, Senate and presidency. [142]
A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver that allows a president or other official with veto power to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action ("keeping it in their pocket" [1]), thus effectively killing the bill without affirmatively vetoing it. This depends on the laws of each country; the common alternative is that if the president ...
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).
This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political ...
In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president the power to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures in appropriations bills. [45] The Supreme Court subsequently declared the line-item veto unconstitutional as a violation of the Presentment Clause in Clinton v.
The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be ...