Line-item veto

The line-item veto, also called the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that authorizes a chief executive to reject particular provisions of a bill enacted by a legislature without vetoing the entire bill. Many countries have different standards for invoking the line-item veto, if it exists at all. Each country or state has its own particular requirement for overriding a line-item veto.

"Line item" redirects here. For line items in accounting and bookkeeping, see General ledger and Financial statement.

Countries allowing line-item veto

Brazil

The President of Brazil has the power of the line-item veto over all legislation (art. 84 Federal Constitution of 1988: "The President of the Republic has the exclusive powers to: (...) V.veto bills, either in whole or in part"). Any provisions vetoed in such a manner are returned to the Brazilian congress, and can be overridden by a vote (art. 66 of the Federal Constitution). An example of this came in August 2012, when Dilma Rousseff vetoed portions of a new forestry law which had been criticized as potentially causing another wave of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest.[1]

Panama

The President of Panama has the ability to partially veto portions of a bill.[2]

United States
Main article: Line-item veto in the United States

Federal government

Dating to before the American Civil War, U.S. Presidents including Ulysses S. Grant and Ronald Reagan have sought line-item veto powers. It was not until the presidency of Bill Clinton that Congress passed such legislation.[3] Intended to control "pork barrel spending", the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1998 ruling in Clinton v. City of New York. The court affirmed a lower court decision that the line-item veto was equivalent to the unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.[4] Before the ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[5][6]

Since then, the prospect of granting the President of the United States a line-item veto has occasionally resurfaced in Congress, either through a constitutional amendment or a differently worded bill. Most recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on February 8, 2012, that would have granted the President a limited line-item veto; however, the bill was not heard in the U.S. Senate.[7] The most-commonly proposed form of the line-item veto is limited to partial vetoes of spending bills.[3]

Confederate States of America

While the Constitution of the Confederate States of America was largely based on the U.S. Constitution, one of the most notable departures was the granting of a line-item veto to its president.[8] Jefferson Davis, however, never exercised the provision.

State governments

Forty-three states—all except Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont—give their governors some form of line-item veto power.[9] The Mayor of Washington, D.C. also has this power.[10]

gollark: Oh, it also has that weird conditional compile thing depending on `_linux.go` suffixes or `_test.go` ones I think?
gollark: Okay, sure, you can ignore that for Go itself, if we had Go-with-an-alternate-compiler-but-identical-language-bits it would be irrelevant.
gollark: I can't easily come up with a *ton* of examples of this, but stuff like generics being special-cased in for three types (because guess what, you *do* actually need them), certain basic operations returning either one or two values depending on how you interact with them, quirks of nil/closed channel operations, the standard library secretly having a `recover` mechanism and using it like exceptions a bit, multiple return values which are not first-class at all and which are used as a horrible, horrible way to do error handling, and all of go assembly, are just inconsistent and odd.
gollark: And inconsistent.
gollark: But... Google is hiring some of the smartest programmers around, can they *not* make a language which is not this, well, stupid? Dumbed-down?

References
  1. "Brazil president vetoes parts of law opening up Amazon". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on May 29, 2012. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  2. Jackson, Eric. "With Martinelli out of the country, assembly passes nine laws in one". The Panama News. Archived from the original on December 27, 2013. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  3. Madison, Lucy (August 10, 2012). "15 years after its brief existence, line-item veto eludes presidents". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  4. Steve Charnovitz, "The Line Item Veto Isn't a 'Veto' at All," National Law Journal, March 23, 1998, p. A17.
  5. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto". CNN. June 25, 1998. Archived from the original on October 8, 2008.
  6. "History of Line Item Veto Notices". National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  7. Lawder, David (February 8, 2012). "House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto". Reuters. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  8. "Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861". Avalon Project.
  9. "Gubernatorial Veto Authority with Respect to Major Budget Bill(s)". National Conference of State Legislatures.
  10. District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Pub.L. 93–198, 87 Stat. 777, enacted December 24, 1973)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.