Clinton v. City of New York
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.
1998 in the United States524 U.S. 417Antonin_ScaliaArticle One of the United States ConstitutionArticle Two of the United States ConstitutionBill OrtonCharles J. CooperClinton, President of the United States v. City of New YorkClinton v. New YorkClinton v. New York CityClinton v. city of new yorkClinton v City of New YorkClinton v nycClinton vs. New YorkContract with AmericaDan_CoatsEric S. SchmittImmigration and Naturalization Service v. ChadhaJune 25Line-item vetoLine-item veto in the United StatesLine Item Veto Act of 1996List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist CourtList of landmark court decisions in the United StatesLockheed_SR-71_BlackbirdMichael GerhardtNondelegation doctrinePowers of the president of the United StatesPresentment ClausePresidency_of_Bill_ClintonPresident_of_the_United_StatesRaines v. ByrdRider (legislation)Self-executing ruleSeparation of powers under the United States ConstitutionSigning statementThomas F. HoganTulane Law ReviewUnited States constitutional law
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Clinton v. City of New York
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.
has abstract
Clinton v. City of New York, 5 ...... by Justice John Paul Stevens.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,017,640,533
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Clinton v. City of New York,
@en
Concurrence
Kennedy
@en
Concurrence/Dissent
Scalia
@en
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Breyer
@en
findlaw
fullname
William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al.
@en
googlescholar
Holding
The President's unilateral str ...... previously approved the text.
@en
JoinConcurrence/Dissent
O'Connor; Breyer
@en
JoinDissent
O'Connor and Scalia
@en
JoinMajority
Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg
@en
justia
LawsApplied
U.S. Const. art. I; 2 U.S.C. § 691 et seq.
@en
Litigants
Clinton v. City of New York
@en
majority
Stevens
@en
oyez
ParallelCitations
Prior
Judgment for plaintiffs, 985 F. Supp. 168
@en
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Clinton v. City of New York, 5 ...... by Justice John Paul Stevens.
@en
label
Clinton v. City of New York
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al.
@en