0
On what grounds did the US Supreme Court declare the legislative veto unconstitutional?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
The case of Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998) declared the line item veto unconstitutional.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Stevens, the US Supreme Court held that The Line Item Veto Bill of 1996 was unconstitutional under the Presentment and Bicameral Clauses (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3).
Republicans assumed control of both houses of Congress in 1994 as a result of their "Contract with America" platform that promised, among other things, to restore conservative spending and eliminate government waste.
One piece of legislation designed to make the President more accountable for spending was The Line Item Veto Bill of 1996, that authorized the President to strike new, direct spending from appropriation bills (bills that require the federal government to fund something), and disallowed use of funds from canceled provisions to offset deficit spending elsewhere. President Clinton supported the legislation because it gave him unilateral power over wasteful spending. There was no provision in the 1996 bill allowing Congress a voice in the veto process.
A group of six Senators attempted to stop the legislation by court order and were granted summary judgment (in their favor) by the US District Court, but the US Supreme Court dismissed their case for lack of standing because they received no direct injury as a result of the legislation.
Several other groups successfully filed a consolidated suit against the President for changes he made to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. One case involved disputed taxes between the State of New York and health care organizations providing services to medicaid patients; the other eliminated a tax shelter that helped farmers.
The Court held the President could only sign or veto a legislative package in its entirety. If the President objected to any part of the bill, he could return it to Congress and allow them to deliberate over, and address, the objections.
The Court also believed Congress erred in passing the bill under the "non-delegation doctrine" of the Constitution that states Congress can't reassign its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy asserted the line item veto also conferred too much power to the President, who would have the ability to reward or punish certain groups with the strike of a pen. According to Kennedy, the potential for abuse was high, and the practice would upset the government's system of checks and balances.
The Line Item Veto Act of 2006
President Bush attempted to pass similar legislation in 2006 that addressed infringement of the Bicameral and Presentment Clauses by allowing the President to nullify provisions of a bill, but required that he return the Bill to Congress, which would have a period of 10 days to debate the issue and decide how to address the revision.
Article I, Section 7
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoThe Supreme Court held Congress can't delegate its constitutional authority to the President (or anyone else) because it violates the "separation of powers" doctrine and gives the President too much power.
In Clinton v. City of New York, (1998), the Supreme Court determined the President could only sign or veto a legislative package in its entirety. In the opinion of the Court, Congress erred in passing the bill under the "non-delegation doctrine" of the Constitution that states Congress can't reassign its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.
Case Citation:
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoIn a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Stevens, the US Supreme Court held that The Line Item Veto Bill of 1996 was unconstitutional under the Presentment and Bicameral Clauses (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3).
The Court held the President could only sign or veto a legislative package in its entirety. If the President objected to any part of the bill, he could return it to Congress and allow them to deliberate over, and address, the objections.
The Court also believed Congress erred in passing the bill under the "non-delegation doctrine" of the Constitution that states Congress can't reassign its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy asserted the line item veto also conferred too much power to the President, who would have the ability to reward or punish certain groups with the strike of a pen. According to Kennedy, the potential for abuse was high, and the practice would upset the government's system of checks and balances.
Case Citation:
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoThe Supreme Court declared the line item veto unconstitutional for Federal Laws. The line item veto is used by governors of 43 states, however.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoThe legislative branch can't veto bills only the president can veto, so your question can't happen.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which branch can rule the presidents actions unconstitutional?
If the president is acting according to law but someone believes the law in unconstitutional and sues and the Supreme Court takes the case, it would determine the constitutionality of the law. If the president is acting illegally and violating the constitution, it would be the responsibility of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. The Senate would then determine whether the charges were valid grounds for dismissing the president from office.
What does it mean to pass constitutional muster?
It means to withstand a legal challenge on Constitutional grounds. An unconstitutional law is one that will not "pass Constitutional muster," and would be overturned by the SCOTUS if challenged.
What violated the tradition that presidents controlled their cabinets?
Tenure of Office Act of 1867 made it illegal for the President to fire a cabinet member without the approval of Congress. It was used as grounds for impeaching President Andrew Johnson. It was later declared to be unconstitutional.
What law did the US Supreme Court declare unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison?
The Marbury v Madison (1803) decision concerned Article III of the Constitution, especially the section which states that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases . . . arising under the Constitution." The decision of Marbury v Madison resolved any doubt about that clause. The power of Judicial Review, the right to rule on the actions and acts of the federal government, rested with the federal courts. This decision gave the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
What was the long-term significance of the decision of Marbury v. Madison for the US government?
The Court decided that Marbury's request for a writ of mandamus was based on a law passed by Congress that the Court held to be unconstitutional. The Court decided unanimously (4-0) that the federal law contradicted the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme. Through this case, Chief Justice John Marshall established the power of judicial review: the power of the Court not only to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute but also to carry out the process and enforce its decision.This case is the Court's first elaborate statement of its power of judicial review. In language which remains relevant today, Chief Justice Marshall said, "lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Nowhere in the Constitution does the Court have the power that Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed. Despite there being no mention of such power in the Constitution, since 1803, our Nation has assumed the two chief principles of this case: that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and a federal or state law, the Constitution is supreme; and that it is the job of the Court to interpret the laws of the United States.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
On what grounds can the US Supreme Court strike down state or federal law?
The US Supreme Court can nullify laws that are unconstitutional, but only if the law is appropriately challenged by a person or entity with standing.
Why did the Supreme Court find the Keating-Owens law unconstitutional?
It was on the grounds that child labor was not interstate commerce and therefore only state could regulate it.
On what grounds did the supreme court declare the legislative veto unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court held Congress can't delegate its constitutional authority to the President (or anyone else) because it violates the "separation of powers" doctrine and gives the President too much power.In Clinton v. City of New York, (1998), the Supreme Court determined the President could only sign or veto a legislative package in its entirety. In the opinion of the Court, Congress erred in passing the bill under the "non-delegation doctrine" of the Constitution that states Congress can't reassign its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.Case Citation:Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
On what grounds did the Virginia federal judge declare the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional- on December 12 2010?
You know, this isn't really a place for those types of questions. Try google.
What Presidential act been declared unconstitutional a real example?
In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998), the US Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto Act of 1996unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress improperly attempted to confer some of its legislative powers on the President, violating constitutional separation of powers.
Why are the critics saying that the PPACA is unconstitutional?
Beginning in 2014, the PPACA will require individuals to purchase health care insurance. This is the first time in history that the federal government has ever forced Americans to buy anything. If this bill is upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional, the powers of the federal governement will be seemingly endless. The thought of being forced to purchase anything on the grounds of American citizenship is unconstitutional...
How does the Legislative Branch check the Judicial Branch?
The Judicial Branch, which is lead by the US Supreme Court, checks the power of the Legislative Branch through the use of what is called Judicial Review. This allows the Judicial Branch to decide if a law that Congress passed is constitutional or unconstitutional. Further, it allows the Judicial Branch to "define" that law by answering questions about it that are not spoken to directly in the regulation itself.This power is not unlimited, however. No court can consider the constitutionality of a law unless the law is a relevant part of a "case or controversy" before the court.Chief Justice John Marshall clearly affirmed the Court's right of judicial review in the case Marbury v. Madison, (1803), when the Court declared Section 13 of the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional.
Did the Bonus Bill of 1816 have any effect on us transportation?
No it did not. It was vetoed by the president at the time(forget which one) on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.
On what grounds did Dred Scott sue for his freedom in court?
missouri, and the supreme court
Is the War Power Act unconstitutional?
For the most part Presidents have ignored the War Powers Act partly on the grounds that it is Unconstitutional for one branch of government to either increase or decrease the power of another branch. separation of power
Which branch can rule the presidents actions unconstitutional?
If the president is acting according to law but someone believes the law in unconstitutional and sues and the Supreme Court takes the case, it would determine the constitutionality of the law. If the president is acting illegally and violating the constitution, it would be the responsibility of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. The Senate would then determine whether the charges were valid grounds for dismissing the president from office.
What governor abolished the death penalty in California?
In 1972 the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty on the grounds that is was unconstitutional and was cruel and unusual punishment. I admit the gas chamber would not be a pleasant way to die, but it's nothing compared to what Sharon Tate and her friends had to endure in the last moments of their lives.
