Search results
Two separate actions were filed in District Court against President Clinton and other federal officials challenging these cancellations. The plaintiffs in the first case are the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two unions representing health care employees.
Appellant, President Clinton, exercised his power under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 by canceling two provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that adversely affected New York. Appellees, New York City and several private organizations, challenged the constitutionality of the cancellations.
12 lut 2019 · Case Summary of Clinton v. New York: President Clinton exercised his new powers under the Line Item Veto Act. Those impacted by the exercise of the line-item veto sued in federal court. The federal district court held that the Line Item Veto Act violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.
Clinton v. City of New York is a case decided on June 25, 1998, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that all changes to existing laws must be initiated by Congress. The case concerned whether the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.
Clinton v. City of New York: The Constitutional requirement of presentment prevents the president from changing or repealing laws or parts of laws without the prior consent of Congress.
This is a case brief on the Presidential powers being put against congressional legislation, where the city of New York is suing the President for overstepping
Brief Fact Summary. Bethel (Plaintiff) was injured while riding a New York City Transit Authority (Defendant) bus and prevailed on his negligence suit against Defendant. Defendant appealed and argued that it was held to too high of a standard of care.
