Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.



The supreme court case about line-item vetoes

Sarah Myers

on 2 May 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse


The City of New York Supreme Court Case Sarah Myers
Presents... When? This case began on April 27, 1998 and ended on June 25, 1998. Why was the issue brought to the Supreme Court? Clinton cancelled a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which got rid of the federal government's right to recoupment of up to 2.6 billion dollars in taxes that New York levied against Medicaid providers. He also vetoed a section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which permitted owners of some "food refiners and processores to defer recognition of capital gains if they sold their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives." The City of New York, 2 people from a hospital association, 1 hospital, and a few unions made up one of the groups who brought this case to a District Court and the other group was the Snake River farmers' cooperative. The District Court found that the Line Item Veto Act was, in fact, unconstitutional. After the case went through the District Court, an appeal was made and accepted by the Supreme Court. Which federal interpretation was challenged in this case? The question was whether or not the Line Item Veto Act violated the Presentment Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution. "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 Senate, 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." Majority Decision... 6 votes for the City of New York and 3 votes for President Clinton. The Majority Voters Written by Justice Stevens
Justice Rehnquist
Justice Kennedy
Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
Justice Ginsburg The Dissenting Voters One written by Justice Scalia
Another written by Justice Breyer
Justice O'Conner They used the Presentment Clause to back their decision. They argued that the two branches, the Executive and Legislative, were readjusting their powers around each other. They believed that neither branch was losing or gaining power and, therefore, the Line Item Veto Act was constitutional. The Concurring Voter Written by Justice Kennedy The reason Kennedy wrote this was to express to the dissenter about how important the separation of power is. Importance to government scholars... This is important to goverment scholars because it shows how the president's power of veto already balances the legislative's law making ability and, if the executive is allowed to veto just one part, then he is making the law; therefore, the Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional. BIBLIOGRAPHIES "CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL :: 524 U.S. 417." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. Web. 01 May 2011. <http://supreme.justia.com/us/524/417/>.
"Clinton v. City of New York | Casebriefs." Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students. Web. 01 May 2011. <http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/administrative-law/administrative-law-keyed-to-strauss/agencies-and-the-structural-constitution/clinton-v-city-of-new-york/2/>.
"Clinton v. City of New York | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts and More. Web. 01 May 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_97_1374/>.
The End!
Full transcript