Search results
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
Facts. 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.
President Clinton exercised his authority under the Act to cancel one provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Two separate actions were filed in District Court against President Clinton and other federal officials challenging these cancellations.
Free and Accurate Law School Case Briefs. Want to ace your law school exams? Our case briefs can help! Based on the most popular casebooks, they provide a concise breakdown of key case elements to help you navigate your readings and take better notes.
6 kwi 2024 · President Clinton (defendant) used the Line Item Veto Act to cancel provisions in two federal Acts, affecting New York (plaintiff) and Idaho potato farmers (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs argued that the cancellations caused immediate financial harm and challenged their constitutionality.
8 paź 2007 · Note that the formatting of this brief has been stripped in the copying and pasting process. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) FACTS: In April 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to “cancel in whole” certain spending items.
