236 Sentences With "item veto" | Random Sentence Generator

What is a line item veto: President Bush sent a request to Congress to use a line item veto in 2006.

The line-item veto has been something presidents have wanted apparently since at least Ulysses S. Grant, and many governors do have line-item veto power for appropriations bills in their states.

In Clinton, the Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act (LIVA).

And one could add other powers, such as the line-item veto.

Past presidents have also sought a line-item veto or similar powers.

" Mnuchin later said on Fox News Sunday, "I think they should give the president a line-item veto," to which the show's host, Chris Wallace, noted that line-item veto power has "been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Thus, Congress was constitutionally disabled from giving the president a line item veto.

The Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional almost 20 years ago.

BY THE WAY … You know who was the champion of the line-item veto?

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. 12.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a congressionally passed line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Or, better yet, give the president a line-item veto so he can purge the pork.

Legislation to create some type of line-item veto may be offered in the near future.

Count on the courtroom Tavares said she hopes Kasich would line-item veto the "Heartbeat Bill" language.

Nonetheless Mr Evers will retain many powers, including an especially handy governor's line-item veto over legislation.

Asa Hutchinson on his line-item veto of a bill that would have ended Arkansas' Medicaid expansion.

Barr advised the White House they could not establish the line-item veto, disappointing the President's hopes.

In 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott used the line-item veto to defund the state's Colonia Initiatives Program.

Environmentalists had urged Northam to use a line-item veto to reject the budget language dealing with RGGI.

But just recently, the governor of Connecticut used his line-item veto power to cut support for the humanities.

And in the Line Item Veto case, the Supreme Court noted that President Clinton could not line-edit legislation.

The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1998, two years after the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was introduced.

Kasich spokeswoman Emmalee Kalmbach would not comment on whether Kasich would use a line-item veto to kill the provision.

During his campaign, Clinton had called for the line-item veto, campaign finance reform, and significant reductions in Capitol Hill staff.

Mnuchin suggested that line-item veto power would give the President the ability to thwart Democratic demands in future spending bills.

The newspaper of the state's leading city credited Rubio's embrace of spending limits, a line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment.

President Donald Trump on Friday called for reinstating the line-item veto, a practice ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.

Scott said a line-item veto of the provision would have eliminated funds available for the hiring additional school officers this year.

In that tweet, the President had an idea for how to improve the budgeting process: Congress should give him a line-item veto.

Katich also used his line-item veto authority to block a $264 million tax break for the oil and gas industry in Ohio.

The Supreme Court in 1998 ruled that legislation giving then-President Clinton a line-item veto for tax and spending provisions was unconstitutional.

An American Bar Association task force even suggested they were a form of line-item veto –something the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional.

To prevent this omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all govt spending bills!

Washington (CNN)Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin asserted Sunday Congress could give President Donald Trump "line-item veto" power -- something the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.

Trump also called on Congress to give him line-item veto powers on all government spending bills, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1998.

H. W. Bush made it clear that he wanted the power of the line-item veto to strike down elements of left-leaning spending bills.

But on our own shores, just recently, the governor of Connecticut used his line item veto power to cut support for the humanities in the state.

He also called on Congress to give him "line-item veto" powers for all government spending bills, which the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1998.

The state's teachers' union sent Scott a letter Thursday asking him to line-item veto the funding that the bill would appropriate for the Guardian program.

This law was passed in the 1990s in an effort to curb the federal deficit by giving the president a "line item veto" over specifically earmarked funds.

John Kasich has 10 days after the bill reaches his desk to issue a line-item veto (the bill was a last-minute addition to another bill).

Past presidents from both parties have called on Congress to give them a line-item veto, a power that the governors of more than 40 states possess.

"To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all government spending bills," Trump said.

When asked about the call for a line-item veto on Monday, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah said Trump wants to reform the budget process.

Trump also proposed a few solutions to avoid this problem for future spending bills, one of which included Congress giving him the power of a line-item veto.

Democratic Governor Mark Dayton touched off the legal battle with his line-item veto of funding for the Republican-controlled state legislature in the fiscal 2018-2019 biennial budget.

Ramsey County District Court Chief Judge John Guthmann ruled the Democratic governor's line-item veto of fiscal 2018-2019 legislative appropriations violated the state constitution's separation of powers clause.

Lawmakers passed legislation to give the president a line-item veto in 1996, but that law was overturned in 1998 by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote.

The panel said the case was "really no different from" a lawsuit by six federal lawmakers who argued that the line-item veto illegally deprived them of political power.

The Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in 1998, saying it gave the President the power to unilaterally change or repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress.

But these and millions of other taxpayers have no First Amendment licence to object to supporting expenditures they deplore; individuals do not enjoy a free-speech-backed line-item veto.

In 1996, the Republican-controlled Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a law that allowed the president to have a line-item veto to cancel certain tax and spending provisions.

To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line item veto for a government spending bills, and the Senate must end.

Unfortunately, what the president didn't seem to know is that the line-item veto was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and Congress doesn't have the authority to override that decision.

On Friday, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy decided to cut 33 percent of state appropriations for the University of Alaska system as part of his $444 million line-item veto to the state budget.

"To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all government spending bills," Trump said at an event at the White House.

City of New York, that the line-item veto was unconstitutional because it gave unilateral power to the president to amend the text of laws — which is the legislative branch's, not the president's, territory.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, cited a case where the Supreme Court found that individual members of Congress couldn't sue over the president's ability to selectively veto parts of legislation, known as a line-item veto.

But since then, there have been several gimmicks to try to fix the budget process, including the Gramm-Rudman Hollings Act of 1985, the Balanced Budget Amendment, and giving the president a line-item veto.

" The NYT reported in 1998 that the decision came as "a major blow to President Clinton and Republican leaders of Congress," after Clinton used the line item veto to "kill Medicaid benefits for New York.

Scott said he wasn't personally "persuaded" the provision would make schools safer -- and several students told VICE News they hoped Scott would use his line-item veto to nix that particular part of the bill.

The university's supporters have embarked on a desperate scramble to persuade lawmakers to override the governor's line-item veto, which would reduce the operating funds the university system gets from the state by 41 percent.

He also threatened to use his line-item veto power to slash more than $850 million in the budget passed by the Legislature, arguing that it did not provide enough revenue to cover projected spending.

The challenge came during the Clinton administration, after the Congress passed the short-lived Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president the power to scratch certain items from spending and tax bills.

By using the National Emergencies Act to boost the figure to $8 billion, Trump is effectively rewriting the new law, just as Clinton, by using the line item veto power, was effectively rewriting the budget in 1997.

In addition to pushing for a line-item veto, Trump also reiterated his calls for the Senate to end its filibuster rule that requires most legislation to be supported by 60 Senators, rather than a simple majority.

The turning point came on Friday, when the State House of Representatives, meeting at the Capitol in Juneau in the fifth special session since last summer, failed to override a line-item veto of the budget by Gov.

But in announcing that he would not close the state government, Mr. Murphy left himself with two options: he could sign the budget as it is or use his line-item veto power to remove specific spending provisions.

On the same day, Mr. Sweeney visited Abilities Solutions, an organization in the southern part of the state that provides jobs for people with developmental disabilities and that would have its funding cut under Mr. Murphy's line-item veto.

"There are a lot of things I am unhappy about," Trump said, calling for an end to the Senate filibuster, which gave Democrats, who control 49 Senate seats, leverage over spending negotiations and a line-item veto (which would be unconstitutional).

Minnesota's AA-plus general obligation and other credit ratings were placed on a watch list by S&P in the wake of Governor Mark Dayton's line-item veto of funding for the state legislature in the fiscal 2018-2019 budget.

Mr. Christie had made clear that if the Horizon bill were not passed, he would use his line-item veto to strike Democratic spending priorities from the budget, including school funding and social welfare programs, in effect rendering the budget useless.

"To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all government spending bills," he said, expressing unhappiness with the massive bill and the haste with which it was passed.

While it's highly unlikely that Trump would receive powers approximating a line-item veto, allies say the president's calls send a message to his base that he hears their frustrations about excessive spending and the obstacles to enacting his agenda.

As part of his conservative overhaul of the state budget, Governor Sam Brownback used the line-item veto to completely defund the Kansas Arts Commission in 2011, making Kansas the only state in the country without a functioning state arts agency.

He called on the Senate to get rid of the filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote majority in order to move legislation forward, and asked them to give him line-item veto authority, which was ruled in 1998 to be unconstitutional.

"In the past, Republicans and Democrats have come together to support a constitutional 'line-item veto' that would enable the president to propose targeted cuts in spending and to ensure his proposals are promptly acted on by Congress," Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said.

"To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line item veto for all government spending bills and the Senate must end -- they must end -- the filibuster rule and get down to work," he said in March.

Bush made an attempt in 2006, trying to re-write the law so Congress could override a line-item veto with a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote (which is needed to override a regular old presidential veto.) Obama considered asking in 2010.

"Let's set the record straight - the new governor will still have some of the strongest powers of any governor in the nation if these bills become law," he said, noting that Evers would exercise one of the most sweeping line-item veto authorities in the country.

" Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court, who made the decision, said per the New York Times: "The Line Item Veto Act violates the procedural requirements ordained in Article I of the United States Constitution and impermissibly upsets the balance of powers so carefully prescribed by its framers.

The challenge to the line-item veto came from New York City and its health care and hospital workers, after the president struck down a tax break tied to Medicaid funding; and from Idaho potato farmers, who fought back after Clinton knocked off a beneficial provision in a tax bill.

In its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) says the cuts – which took effect in 2013 as a temporary budget-balancing measure but have been extended through 2027 – are an unconstitutional "line-item veto" of the reimbursement formula that Congress wrote into the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003.

Despite his hard-line ideology, supporters of Barr point toward instances in his first Justice Department tenure that they say show he approached decisions based on an honest review of the facts, like when he told the White House there was no precedent to support the desire of some Republicans to use a line-item veto that would give the president a strategic advantage over lawmakers.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump pushes back on recent polling data, says internal numbers are 'strongest we've had so far' Illinois state lawmaker apologizes for photos depicting mock assassination of Trump Scaramucci assembling team of former Cabinet members to speak out against Trump MORE's call for a line-item veto of spending bills is the latest example of his frustration with the rules of Washington.

To make constitutional sense of the emergency wall funding called for by Trump, the key case is not Youngstown, but Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonBen Shapiro: No prominent GOP figure ever questioned Obama's legitimacy The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump tries to reassure voters on economy 3 real problems Republicans need to address to win in 2020 MORE versus New York, which involved a challenge to the Line Item Veto Act.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump pushes back on recent polling data, says internal numbers are 'strongest we've had so far' Illinois state lawmaker apologizes for photos depicting mock assassination of Trump Scaramucci assembling team of former Cabinet members to speak out against Trump MORE on Friday asked Congress to provide him with a line-item veto on spending bills, as he signed a $85033 trillion omnibus spending package that includes provisions he doesn't like.

Some scholars, such as Louis Fisher, believe the line-item veto would give presidents too much power over government spending compared with the power of the Congress.Michael G. Locklar, Is the 1996 Line Item Veto Constitutional?, 34 Hous. L. Rev. 1161 (1997); Louis Fisher, State Techniques to Blunt the Governor's Item-Veto Power (1996) (CRS Report No. 96-996 GOV) (listing the tactics used in states "to counteract, blunt, or neutralize the governor's item-veto power"); Legislative Line-Item Veto Proposals: Hearing Before the Senate Comm.

The Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), struck down as unconstitutional the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, holding that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause.

Override attempt failed in Senate, 64–36 ( needed). # November 13, 1997: Vetoed , a line item veto override bill.The Supreme Court declared the line item veto unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).

He was also a political scholar and staunch opponent of the line-item veto.

Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. President Bill Clinton used the line item veto 11 times, striking spending on 82 items. The first case challenging the line-item veto was ordered dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of standing, vacating the trial court's decision finding that the veto was unconstitutional. Raines v.

Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.

Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in 1998, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line item veto power to the Executive. First announcing his intent to seek such legislation in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush sent a legislative proposal Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 to Congress on March 6, 2006, urging its prompt passage. Senator Bill Frist, Senator John McCain, and Republican Whip Senator Mitch McConnell jointly introduced this proposal. On that same day, Joshua Bolten, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, gave a press conference on the president's line-item veto proposal.

Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act in 1998, President George W. Bush asked the Congress to enact legislation that would return the line-item veto power to the Executive Authority. First announcing his intent to seek such legislation in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush sent a legislative proposal, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006, to the Congress on March 6, 2006, urging its prompt passage. Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and John McCain (R-AZ), and Republican Whip Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) jointly introduced this proposal. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced his own version, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, in March of that year. On that same day, Joshua Bolten, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, gave a press conference on the President’s line-item veto proposal.

There are two types of budget bill veto: the line-item veto and the veto of the whole budget.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was a federal law of the United States that granted the President the power to line-item veto budget bills passed by Congress, but its effect was brief as the act was soon ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York.

The Governor of Wisconsin is empowered with a sweeping line-item veto. Wisconsin governors have the power to strike out words, numbers, and even entire sentences from appropriations bills.Apple, R.W., Jr. "Line-Item Veto Would Begin Voyage Into a Vast Unknown", New York Times, March 27, 1995. According to scholars, Wisconsin has used four types of extraordinary partial vetoes.

The 1897 House failed to organize, caught up on a dispute over the reelection of U.S. Senator John H. Mitchell. Lord also called for a constitutional amendment to the Oregon Constitution allowing the Governor a line item veto. While nothing came of this during his term of office, later governors would support Lord's proposal. The line item veto was finally approved in 1916.

However, this line-item veto was immediately challenged by members of Congress who disagreed with it. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to declare the line-item veto unconstitutional. In Clinton v. City of New York (), the Court found the language of the Constitution required each bill presented to the President to be either approved or rejected as a whole.

Alessi, et al., "Money For Baptist College Stays In", p. A1 In an attempt to avoid "excessive debt", Fletcher used his line-item veto to trim $370 million in projects from the budget passed by the Assembly. Although falling far short of his initial prediction of vetoing $938 million, Fletcher used the line-item veto more than any other governor in state history.

It is also required to comply with a state constitutional spending mandate for K-12 education. The Governor has line item veto power over appropriations.

Congress attempted to grant this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment.

Rappaport at 290. J.Stephen Kennedy wrote that the majority of the Supreme Court was sufficiently concerned with the constitutional challenges to the line item veto presented to declare the act wholly unconstitutional, instead of relying on other traditional and less sweeping ways of correcting acts of Congress. In his view, "the Court’s decision sent a clear message of finality for any future use of the line item veto".

Governors have the power to strike out words, numbers, and even entire sentences from bills.Apple, R.W., Jr. "Line-Item Veto Would Begin Voyage Into a Vast Unknown", New York Times, March 27, 1995. The partial veto may still be overridden by the legislature. In 1990 a further amendment specified that the line-item veto does not give the governor power to veto individual letters of appropriations bills, thereby forming new words.

It also included a 50% tax cut for small business owners on the first $250,000 of annual net income. Kasich used his line-item veto power to reject a measure that would stop the Medicaid expansion (which Kasich had accepted from the federal government) to cover nearly 275,000 working poor Ohioans. In 2015, Kasich signed into law a $71 billion two-year state budget after using his line-item veto power to veto 44 items.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the president the power of line-item veto, which President Bill Clinton applied to the federal budget 82 times before the law was struck down in 1998 by the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being in violation of the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Strengthening the rescission provision within the 1974 act has also been proposed as a means of curtailing excessive congressional spending.

The Governor of Louisiana carries the power of the line-item veto. However, the legislature has the constitutional power to override a gubernatorial veto by a vote of two-thirds from each house.

Following his departure from Congress, Orton resumed the practice of law and was a member of the legal counsel of the plaintiff in Idaho Potato Growers v. Rubin, a case Clinton v. City of New York in which the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was ruled unconstitutional. While serving in congress, Orton argued on the floor of the US House of Representatives that, as a "budget hawk", he was in favor of the President having the line item veto.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to nullify certain provisions of appropriations bills, and disallowed the use of funds from canceled provisions for offsetting deficit spending in other areas. At its passage, the Act was politically controversial, with many Democrats breaking with Clinton to oppose it. Of the opposition, six members of Congress, including Republican Mark Hatfield, sued to prevent use of the line-item veto. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found the Act unconstitutional.

The President, however, still has the power to veto appropriations bills. However, the President does not have line-item veto authority so that he must either sign the entire bill into law or veto it.

In 1996, Congress gave President Bill Clinton a line-item veto over parts of a bill that required spending federal funds. The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. New York City, found Clinton's veto of pork-barrel appropriations for New York City to be unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment could give the president line-item veto power. When a bill is presented for signature, the president may also issue a signing statement with expressions of their opinion on the constitutionality of a bill's provisions.

Presidents of the United States have repeatedly asked the Congress to give them line-item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cut, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.

President Bill Clinton exercised his line-item veto power at the time, however, and eliminated the Congressionally approved $39 million allocated to the SR-71 program in the fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget. Detachment 2 immediately ceased operations.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to "cancel", that is to void or legally nullify, certain provisions of appropriations bills, and disallowed the use of funds from canceled provisions for offsetting deficit spending in other areas.

3521 Stop Over Spending Act of 2006 authored by Senator Judd Gregg, in the Senate and approved by the Senate Budget Committee, but the full Senate failed to approve it, thereby preventing the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act from becoming law.

State courts and motor vehicle offices resumed normal operations on July 10, 2006, fully ending the shutdown. Corzine used his line-item veto authority to reduce the budget by over $51.3 million by eliminating or reducing over 50 spending items.

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.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission's entire General Fund allocation ($1,927,000) for 2011-12 was eliminated by Governor Brown in a line item veto upon signing the State Budget on June 30, 2011. In his veto message the Governor said the Commission was "ineffective".

It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas), and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v.

Additionally, such proposals could not be filibustered. When asked how this proposed legislation was different from the 1996 Line-Item Veto Act that the United States Supreme Court had declared illegal, Bolten said that whereas the former act granted unilateral authority to the Executive to disallow specific spending line items, the new proposal would seek Congressional approval of such line-item vetoes. Thus, for the President to successfully withdraw previously enacted spending, a simple majority of Congress is required to agree to specific legislation to that effect. Though the 2006 line-item veto proposal was much weaker than the 1996 version, it nevertheless failed to find strong support in the Congress.

Mark B. Dayton, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Minnesota, et al., 62-CV-17-3601 (2017) p.3, paragraph 2 Since the governor's line item veto power was established in 1876,Michael, p. 2. "In 1876, Minnesota voters amended the Constitution giving the governor item veto power, the authority to veto one or more items of appropriation in a bill with multiple appropriations while approving the rest of the bill." the case was only the sixth instance of litigation involving the power in Minnesota history and only the third instance in which such litigation reached the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Welfare participation decreased by 90% under the program. Thompson also successfully backed a school voucher program. Near the end of his governorship, Thompson implemented BadgerCare, which provided health coverage for children ineligible for Medicaid. As governor, Thompson vetoed bills frequently and often exercised the line-item veto.

As of June 10, 2010, New Jersey was 50th of all 50 states in terms of anti-tobacco funding. In 2011, Governor Christie eliminated funding for all state sponsored anti- tobacco programs by means of line item veto. The lack of funding forced REBEL to cease operations.

The organization argues in favor of the line-item veto for the president. NTU generally opposes crop subsidies by the government (such as for sugar and ethanol). The organization's briefs and policy papers decry the federal estate tax and support deregulation. NTU also provides information on "Congressional & Executive Pay/Perks" (e.g.

Analysts disagree "on whether Kasich's education budgets give increases beyond inflation." In the 2015 state budget, Kasich used his line-item veto power "to cut more than $84 million of funding from public schools."Sarah McHaney, What does John Kasich believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues, PBS (July 21, 2015).

The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24–9. It was approved in the full House on June 22. A similar bill was submitted in the Senate, but failed to win approval. The Legislative Line Item Veto Act has therefore not become law.

In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.

Indiana does not have a legal requirement to balance the state budget either in law or its constitution. Instead, it has a constitutional ban on assuming debt. The state has a Rainy Day Fund and for healthy reserves proportional to spending. Indiana is one of six US states to not allow a line-item veto.

Some analysts have questioned the constitutionality of the self-executing rule. Some lawyers and public advocacy groups cite the 1998 Supreme Court case Clinton v. City of New York relating to the line item veto, and the 1983 case Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983) relating to the legislative veto to support these claims.

And the president had line item veto power. In Article III, radical states righters struck the provisional Constitution's provision extending federal jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states. Additionally, federal judicial power no longer applied to all cases of law and equity to accommodate the Roman law concept of single jurisdiction in Louisiana and Texas.Yearns, Wilfred Buck.

Second, the Court has shown that it is willing to rely upon alternative rationales to achieve the same result "as would a more robust nondelegation doctrine rationale". This approach is significant because in theory, such a rationale could endanger previously accepted delegations to the executive. Roy E. Brownell II criticized the Clinton administration for its exercise of the Line Item Veto Act, charging that it should have restricted its cancellation powers only to statutory provisions that remain in the realm of national security. He argued that had the Clinton administration limited its use of the Line Item Veto Act in this fashion, it would have ensured that when the constitutionality of the Act was inevitably challenged, the challenge would have been based on terms most favorable to the Executive.

Within the next two months, Clinton began using the line-item veto, prompting several entities to file suit in a second attempt to have the Act declared unconstitutional. In the second case, which was consolidated from two cases by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the City of New York and several organizations related to health care alleged injury from President Clinton's cancellation of certain provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that eliminated certain liabilities, and Snake River Potato Growers, Inc. alleged injury from the President's cancellation of certain provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that gave tax benefits to aid farmer's cooperatives in purchasing potato processing facilities. The District Court ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional.

The budget of the U.S. state of California is made up of several funds derived from taxes. The General Fund makes up 3/4th of the entire budget; it allocates monies to state operations and payments to localities. The annual budget is proposed by the California State Legislature and approved by the Governor of California, who enjoys the prerogative of line-item veto.

On October 31, 2017, Governor Malloy signed most of the budget, while using his line-item veto to block the increase of the hospital provider fee. This hospital tax get reimbursed by federal government through Medicaid funding. According to the Governor, the wording of the budget had flaws which would cause the state to lose around $1 billion on the tax increase.

When asked how this proposed legislation was different from the 1996 Line Item Veto Act that was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, Bolten said that whereas the former act granted unilateral authority to the Executive to disallow specific spending line items, the new proposal would seek Congressional approval of such line-item vetoes. Thus, in order for the President to successfully rescind previously enacted spending, a simple majority of Congress is required to agree to specific legislation to that effect. Though the newer line-item veto proposal was much weaker than the 1996 version, it nevertheless failed to find strong support in Congress. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia called it "an offensive slap at Congress", asserting that the legislation would enable the president to intimidate individual members of Congress by targeting the projects of his political opponents.

He also complained that the line-item veto as proposed would take away Congress' constitutional "power of the purse" and give it to the executive branch. On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation. Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations.

An action by which the President might pick and choose which parts of the bill to approve or not approve amounted to the President acting as a legislator instead of an executive and head of state—and particularly as a single legislator acting in place of the entire Congress—thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. Prior to this ruling, President Clinton had applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times. In 2006, Senator Bill Frist introduced the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 in the United States Senate. Rather than provide for an actual legislative veto, however, the procedure created by the Act provides that, if the President should recommend the rescission of a budgetary line item from a budget bill he previously signed into law—a power he already possesses pursuant to U.S. Const.

100px Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.

The election of Ben Tillman in 1890 to governor by the support of agrarian reformers forced a new constitutional convention to be held. The constitution of 1895 instituted a poll tax and also required voters to pass a literacy test. These provisions were used to effectively deny the vote to blacks. The convention also increased the governor's powers by granting a line-item veto on the budget.

WA Const. art. III, § 5. the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Washington Legislature and line-item veto power to cancel specific provisions in spending bills.WA Const. art. III, § 12. The Washington Governor may also convene the legislature on "extraordinary occasions". Washington Territory had 14 territorial governors from its organization in 1853 until the formation of the state of Washington in 1889.

The United States Supreme Court later declared presidential line-item veto authority unconstitutional. The future of the SR-71 program remained uncertain. Congress did not include funding for the program in its FY 1999 budget. On 7 April 1998, Air Combat Command received a message from the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force ordering cessation of SR-71 operations and disposal of all related assets.

In each state, the chief executive is called the governor, who serves as both head of state and head of government. All governors are chosen by direct election. The governor may approve or veto bills passed by the state legislature, as well as recommend and work for the passage of bills, usually supported by their political party. In 44 states, governors have line item veto power.

Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, called it "an offensive slap at Congress", asserting that the legislation would enable the President to intimidate individual members of any Congress by targeting the projects of his political opponents. He also complained that the line-item veto as proposed would take away the Congress’s constitutional "power of the purse" and give it to the executive branch. On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center, testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation. Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court.

Bush stated: "That's not how democracy works."Michael Barbaro, Jeb Bush Opposes Shutdown Over Planned Parenthood Funding; Carly Fiorina Doesn't. New York Times (September 27, 2015). As governor of Florida, Bush used his line-item veto to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates in Florida, which had previously used state funds to provide pap smears, sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment, and family planning services to poor women.

City of New York (1998), which invalidated the line-item veto because it violated bicameralism and presentment. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Samuel Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department – see "Presidential usage" below).

Cordray's platform included federal spending cuts, term limits for Congress and a line-item veto for the president. When Deborah Pryce, then a Franklin County municipal judge, announced that she would vote to support abortion rights, Linda S. Reidelbach entered the race as an independent. Thus the general election was a three-way affair, with Pryce taking a plurality of 110,390 votes (44.1%), Cordray 94,907 (37.9%) and Reidelbach 44,906 (17.9%).

The House and the Senate alternate the job of introducing the long bill and making a first committee review of it. Colorado's state legislature is required to obtain voter approval in order to incur significant debt, to raise taxes, or to increase state constitutional spending limitations. It is also required to comply with a state constitutional spending mandate for K-12 education. The governor has line item veto power over appropriations.

The amendments expanded the state's bill of rights, provided for voter-led initiative and referendum, established civil service protections, and granted the governor a line-item veto in appropriation bills. Other amendments empowered the legislature to fix the hours of labor, establish a minimum wage and a workers compensation system, and address a number of other progressive measures. A home rule amendment was proposed for Ohio cities with populations over 5,000.

A must pass bill is a measure, considered vitally important, that must be passed and enacted by the United States Congress (e.g. funding for a function of government). Because of the time-sensitive nature of these bills, they are often amended with policy provisos, or 'riders', unrelated to the principal function of the bill itself. These riders have a good shot at becoming law given the president's lack of line item veto power.

Siljander was appointed by President Reagan as an Ambassador (alternate representative) to the United Nations General Assembly, serving from September 1987 to September 1988. He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1992 for nomination to the 103rd Congress from Virginia. He stated then his message was, "not religious values as much as it's common- sense American traditional values." He campaigned on a budget freeze, a ten percent flat tax and a line-item veto.

This continues until late-April. In May, the Appropriations Committees determines the agency budgets for the next fiscal year and then pass appropriations bills. By the end of May to early June, the Governor evaluates all appropriation bill passed by the Legislature and makes a final decision to approve, veto or line item veto the bills. The current fiscal year ends on June 30 and the recently enacted budget takes effect on July 1.

The Governor is elected under the plurality system. The current governor is Larry Hogan. The governor has power to veto laws passed by the state's legislature and, like most of the nation's governors, also has a line item veto, which can be used to strike certain portions of appropriations bills. The state legislature can override a veto by a three-fifths (60%) vote of the total number of members in each house.

At its passage, the Act was politically controversial, with many Democrats breaking with Clinton to oppose it. Of the opposition, six members of Congress, including Republican Mark Hatfield, sued to prevent use of the line-item veto. They were granted summary judgment by the U.S. District Court, but the Supreme Court held that the Congressmen lacked standing because they could not show any particularized harm, and dismissed their suit in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).

They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants the Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations. H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act, was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24-9. It was approved in the full House on June 22. A similar version was included in the "Stop Over Spending Act of 2006",S.

5 Despite gaining considerable power during the mid-twentieth- century, Indiana's governor remains fairly weak compared to his counterparts in other states. He has no line-item veto authority, and the pocket veto was ruled unconstitutional. If a governor does not sign or reject a bill, it becomes law automatically. This led to a fistfight during the term of Claude Matthews, who was locked out of the House chambers to prevent him from returning a bill in time.

If, however, Congress adjourned during that 10-day period, the bill fails to become law in a procedural device known as the "pocket veto". The bill becomes "mute". The president approves or rejects a bill in its entirety; he is not permitted to veto specific provisions. In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president the power to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures in appropriations bills.

The Supreme Court subsequently declared the line-item veto unconstitutional as a violation of the Presentment Clause in Clinton v. City of New York, . The Court construed the Constitution's silence on the subject of such unilateral presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition," agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure",From INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

McCain attacked what he saw as pork barrel spending within Congress, believing that the practice did not contribute to the greater national interest. Towards this end he was instrumental in pushing through approval of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president the power to veto individual expenditures. Although this was one of McCain's biggest Senate victories, the effect was short-lived as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional in 1998.

How a Bill Becomes Law, West Virginia State Legislature Bills are assigned to committees that make recommendations about a bill in the form of a committee report. The governor has the power to veto bills. For budget bills or supplementary appropriations bills, two-thirds of the members elected to each house are required to override the governor's veto of a bill or line-item veto. For all other bills, a simple majority of each house is required.

In December 2003, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal state of emergency and called for a $150 million budget cut. From 2000 to 2003, the ILE's budget was cut down by 33%. In early 2004, following expressions of public support for the ILE, the University of California directly covered most of staff salaries through June 2004. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto to reject a $3.8 million fund for labor research at the University of California.

Eight justices joined in the majority opinion written by Blackmun, upholding the Guidelines as constitutional. Scalia dissented, stating that the issuance of the Guidelines was a lawmaking function that Congress could not delegate and dubbed the Commission "a sort of junior- varsity Congress". In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, which allowed the president to cancel items from an appropriations bill (a bill authorizing spending) once passed into law. The statute was challenged the following year.

The following day, Sanford brought live pigs, who subsequently defecated on the House floor, into the House chamber as a visual protest against "pork projects." Sanford rejected the Assembly's entire budget on June 13, 2006. Had this veto stood, the state government would have shut down on July 1. He explained his veto as being the only way to get the cuts he desired, and that using the line item veto would have been inadequate as well as impossible.

Economic growth, increased job opportunities, and falling inflation rates were among some of the key issues discussed in this address. Reagan advocated for both an increase in national defense and a reevaluation of the federal budget, arguing the importance of national security and economic stability by appealing to American family values. In addition, the speech addressed welfare issues and proposed that new programs be created to support poor families. Reagan also asked that he be given the authority of a line-item veto.

Until 1980, the city had a Mayor- Council ("strong mayor") structure. The last full-time strong mayor was Walter Evilia, a Republican and a former State Representative. Dana Miller was appointed the first city manager. The City Charter was last amended in 1994, giving the then largely ceremonial position of mayor more influence over city governance, including appointments to all boards and commissions and other positions within the appointing power of the City Council, as well as line- item veto over city budgets.

The Montgomery Convention had assumed all the laws of the United States until superseded by the Confederate Congress.Coulter, "Confederate States of America", pp. 25, 27 The Permanent Constitution provided for a President of the Confederate States of America, elected to serve a six-year term but without the possibility of re-election. Unlike the United States Constitution, the Confederate Constitution gave the president the ability to subject a bill to a line item veto, a power also held by some state governors.

In 1996, Congress attempted to enhance the president's veto power with the Line Item Veto Act. The legislation empowered the president to sign any spending bill into law while simultaneously striking certain spending items within the bill, particularly any new spending, any amount of discretionary spending, or any new limited tax benefit. Congress could then repass that particular item. If the president then vetoed the new legislation, Congress could override the veto by its ordinary means, a two-thirds vote in both houses.

The governor has a strong influence in shaping the agenda of the legislature. All acts of the legislature must be approved by a majority in both houses and signed by the governor to be enacted into law. However, should the governor veto the bill, the legislature, by a two-thirds vote in both houses, may over turn the governor's veto and the bill be enacted into law without the governor's signature. On appropriations bills, the governor has a line-item veto.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court noted that the Recommendations Clause serves as a reminder that the president cannot make law by himself: "The power to recommend legislation, granted to the president, serves only to emphasize that it is his function to recommend and that it is the function of the Congress to legislate." The Court made a similar point in striking down the line-item veto in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

The governor of Wisconsin has the strongest veto power of nearly any American governor. Any bill passed by the Wisconsin State Legislature must be presented to the governor, who either signs it into law, or vetoes it. In the event of a veto, the bill is returned the legislature, who may then vote to override the veto. In 1930, the Wisconsin Constitution was amended to give the governor line-item veto power, which allows portions of appropriations bills to be struck out without rejecting the entire bill.

In December 2014, USVI's unicameral Legislature voted 14–0 to override Governor John P. DeJongh's line-item veto of cannabis decriminalization from the territory's 2015 budget. Penalties for possession of an ounce of cannabis or less were reduced from a year in jail and $5,000 fine to a civil offense punishable by a fine of $100–$200. Governor DeJohng had vetoed the measure in October, saying the bill would complicate the government's ability to deal with cannabis regarding workplace safety rules and pre-trial release and bail.

Kennedy at 371. Kennedy also noted that while the majority relied on a strict interpretation or literal textual reading of the Presentment Clause contained in Article I of the United States Constitution, Justice Scalia, in his dissent, "stray[ed] somewhat from his usual strict constructionist approach ... by stressing that the President's act of cancellation would only occur after satisfaction of the Presentment Clause".Kennedy at 372. Steven F. Huefner wrote that "Although the Presentment Clause analysis of the Line Item Veto Act has superficial appeal, it ultimately does not withstand scrutiny",, at 339.

The 1994 midterm elections signaled an upheaval in American politics known as the Republican Revolution, with the Republican Party taking control of both houses of the U.S. Congress from Democrats. Key to that revolution was the Republicans' Contract with America, which included a list of actions they promised to take if they gained control of Congress. Among this list was the Line Item Veto Act itself, one of two provisions designed to ensure congressional fiscal conservatism. The Act was the only provision of the "Contract with America" that President Clinton supported.

At the time, it was "understood" that no governor should run for a third term, although Texas did not have official term limits for the office. In 1924 Miriam Wallace "Ma" Ferguson, wife of controversial former Governor James E. Ferguson, won the general election. The Republican nominee, George C. Butte, an American jurist who had opposed James Ferguson's line item veto of the 1917 University of Texas appropriations bill, had a stronger than usual showing. Many voters crossed party lines to vote for him, as they were unhappy with the corruption associated with "Pa" Ferguson.

He was also CEO of a local aerospace company employing 200 people for three years until 2003. Tobin was elected the national president of the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce from 1988–1989. In that capacity Tobin served as ex-officio board member of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and the Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Foundation. As president of the United States Junior Chamber, Tobin lobbied the Reagan Administration and later the Bush Administration for passage of the Line-Item Veto and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Jackson, David. "McCain: Life shaped judgment on use of force", USA Today (March 25, 2008). Another target of his was pork barrel spending by Congress, and he actively supported the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president power to veto individual spending items but was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) In the 1996 presidential election, McCain was again on the short list of possible vice- presidential picks, this time for Republican nominee Bob Dole.

The governor has a line-item veto for appropriations bills. Article V also prescribes the powers and duties of the three other major elected state officers: the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and the attorney general. All three are nominated at their respective party conventions; the lieutenant governor runs on a ticket with the governor for the general election. In order to be eligible for election as governor or lieutenant governor, a person must be 30 years old and a registered voter in Michigan for the four years preceding election.

The governor is also given line-item veto power over bills of appropriation, allowing the executive to cut out certain parts of legislation. The constitution does, however, prohibit the governor to create a new word in a bill by objecting to certain letters. Rejected bills or portions of bills are then returned to the legislative house where the bill originated, where a vote from two thirds of the members can override the veto. Article V also sets forth a line of succession for the governor should he resign, be removed, or die.

The reactivation met much resistance: the USAF had not budgeted for the aircraft, and UAV developers worried that their programs would suffer if money was shifted to support the SR-71s. Also, with the allocation requiring yearly reaffirmation by Congress, long-term planning for the SR-71 was difficult. In 1996, the USAF claimed that specific funding had not been authorized, and moved to ground the program. Congress reauthorized the funds, but, in October 1997, President Bill Clinton attempted to use the line-item veto to cancel the $39 million allocated for the SR-71.

The Constitution grants the governor the power to veto laws passed by the Tennessee General Assembly, as well as line-item veto authority for individual spending items included in bills passed by the legislature. In either situation, the governor's veto can be overridden by a simple majority of both houses of the legislature. If a governor exercises the veto authority after the legislature has adjourned, the veto stands. It is uncommon for Tennessee governors to use their veto power, likely because it is relatively easy for the General Assembly to override a veto.

It provided an open primary as a backup, giving the governor the option to choose. Although Secretary of State Sam Reed advocated the blanket, non-partisan system, on April 1, 2004 the Governor used the line-item veto to activate the Open primary instead. In response, Washington's Initiative 872 was filed on January 8, 2004 by Terry Hunt from the Washington Grange, which proposed to create a nonpartisan blanket primary in that state. The measure passed with 59.8% of the vote (1,632,225 yes votes and 1,095,190 no votes) in 2004.

In 2014, Jett announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the 5th Congressional District of Oklahoma. During a June 2014 campaign debate with the other four Republican candidates, Jett indicated that he would not have voted to raise the debt ceiling and would not have voted for John Boehner to remain as Speaker of the House. Jett's biggest focus during his Congressional campaign was getting elected to reduce government spending, supporting a federal balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto. Jett indicated that he is a supporter of Second Amendment gun rights.

Every year, the governor must present a proposed budget to the Maryland General Assembly. After receiving the proposed budget, the assembly is then allowed to decrease any portion of the budget for the executive branch, but it may never increase it or transfer funds between executive departments. The assembly may, however, increase funds for the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. The governor has the power to veto any law that is passed by the General Assembly, including a "line item veto", which can be used to strike certain portions of appropriations bills.

City of New York that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which authorized the President to selectively void portions of appropriation bills, was a violation of the Presentment Clause, which sets forth the formalities governing the passage of legislation. Although the Court noted that the attorneys prosecuting the case had extensively discussed the nondelegation doctrine, the Court declined to consider that question. However, Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, wrote that he would have found the statute to violate the exclusive responsibility for laws to be made by Congress.

In 1990, Stone returned to Utah to enter private practice with the Salt Lake City firm Jones, Waldo, Holbrook, and McDonough where he specialized in antitrust and business litigation. In 1998, Stone assisted in the briefing of the Rubin V. Snake River Potato Growers case which was a companion case that challenged the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The act was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be unconstitutional on June 25, 1998. He assisted in several significant cases involving ERISA and continued his work in antitrust litigation.

Reagan continued to speak publicly in favor of a line-item veto; the Brady Bill; a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget; and the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits anyone from serving more than two terms as president.Reagan (1990), p. 726. In 1992 Reagan established the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award with the newly formed Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. His final public speech occurred on February 3, 1994, during a tribute to him in Washington, D.C.; his last major public appearance was at the funeral of Richard Nixon on April 27, 1994.

He created the BadgerCare program, designed to provide health coverage to those families whose employers don't provide health insurance but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Through the federal waiver program, Thompson helped replicate this program in several states when he became Secretary of Health and Human Services. Thompson was well known for his extensive use of the veto, particularly his sweeping line-item veto powers. At the time, Wisconsin governors had the power to strike out words, numbers, and even entire sentences from appropriations bills.

The state constitution also prohibits multiple subjects in a single bill. If approved by both the West Virginia House of Delegates and the West Virginia Senate, bills are submitted to the governor, who may sign them into law or veto them. State legislators can override the governor's veto of bills with a simple majority vote of both houses, unless the bill is a revenue bill, in which case two-thirds of the members elected to each house are required to override the governor's veto or line-item veto.

The change in tactics was due to polls showing the public holding Republicans rather than the President responsible for the government shutdown, and the fact that further government shutdowns might hurt the potential presidential campaign of Senate majority leader Bob Dole. Republicans continually attempted to use a needed increase in the federal debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in the budget negotiations. The battle over the debt limit caused Moody's to threaten to downgrade its credit rating. The debt ceiling was raised on March 29, 1996, in a bill which also enacted a presidential line-item veto.

In his campaign, Johnson promised to continue the policies of his first term: improving schools; cutting state spending, taxes, and bureaucracy; and frequent use of his veto and line-item veto power. Fielding a strong Hispanic candidate in a 40% Hispanic state, the Democrats were expected to oust Johnson, but Johnson won by a margin of 55% to 45%. This made him the first governor of New Mexico to serve two successive four-year terms after term limits were expanded to two terms in 1991. Johnson made the promotion of a school voucher system a "hallmark issue" of his second term.

The group also had stated they had non-profit status, which was not accurate; they had applied for non-profit status, but it was still under review and had not been granted. The grant, as written in the Wisconsin budget, may have violated rules for federal funding and caused Wisconsin to lose $28 million in federal funds. This was avoided when Wisconsin's governor, Scott Walker, used his Line-item veto power to make the grant fully funded by Wisconsin, removing federal funds. When the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the issues, Governor Walker rescinded the grant.

The governor has the power to veto legislation, which can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature, and can veto particular items from an appropriations or emergency bill while leaving others intact (see line item veto). If needed, the governor may convene a special session of the legislature by proclamation and is empowered to call for special elections to fill vacant seats. Between the vacancy and special election, the governor is able to appoint a replacement. Annually, the governor addresses the legislature in his or her State of the State address.

The Governor also enjoys a line item veto, the power to issue pardons and commute death sentences, and he acts as commander-in- chief of the state's military forces. The offices of each of the state constitutional officers are established in the Washington constitution, with the exception of that of the Insurance Commissioner, which was created by statute. They are each elected on a partisan ballot to concurrent four-year terms, except for the Superintendent of Public Instruction who is officially non-partisan. The Washington State Register (WSR) is a biweekly publication that includes activities of the government.

In November 1978, Solomon was elected to the House of Representatives. In 1980, he was an early and avid supporter of Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, and remained a Reagan stalwart, supporting his efforts to reduce taxes, revive the economy, halt Soviet expansionism and rebuild America's defenses. Solomon supported the line-item veto, a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, a repeal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and amendments that strengthened the Selective Service System. He also sponsored the legislation that created the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, granting full cabinet status to the former Veterans Administration.

Article II—the Congress must vote on his request within ten days. Because the legislation that is the subject of the President's request (or "Special Message", in the language of the bill) was already enacted and signed into law, the vote by the Congress would be ordinary legislative action, not any kind of veto—whether line-item, legislative or any other sort. The House passed this measure, but the Senate never considered it, so the bill expired and never became law. In 2009, Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain introduced legislation of a limited version of the line-item veto.

In the five extant U.S. territories, all governors are now directly elected as well, though in the past many territorial governors were historically appointed by the President of the United States. Governors can veto state bills, and in all but seven states they have the power of the line-item veto on appropriations bills (a power the President does not have). In some cases legislatures can override a gubernatorial veto by a two-thirds vote, in others by three-fifths. In Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, the governor's veto can be overridden by a simple majority vote, making it virtually useless.

The 2011 regular election for a four-year term as lieutenant governor was similarly raucous, as Dardenne was challenged by fellow Republican Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish and the son of the late former Republican Party state chairman William A. Nungesser. In a low-turnout race, Dardenne defeated Nungesser, 504,228 votes (53.1 percent) to 444,750 ballots (46.9 percent). In 2012, Dardenne complained of the lack of funds needed for tourism advertising, a main prerogative of the lieutenant governor's office in Louisiana. On June 15, 2012, Governor Jindal used his line item veto to strip $2 million for tourism advertising from Dardenne's office budget.

On February 26, Dayton signed the bill into law. In addition to reinstating funding for the Legislature, the bill provided for the LCC to have its payments to the Legislature reimbursed. Although Standard & Poor's had "put a 'negative' watch" on the state's otherwise high credit rating while this case proceeded through the courts, the company ultimately upgraded the state's credit rating to AAA in July 2018, after the case and the Legislature's funding uncertainties were resolved. The Associated Press described the Supreme Court ruling as "a major legal victory" for Dayton, and the ruling definitively established the governor's power to exercise the line item veto power for any purpose.

The Legislature prevailed from a policy perspective, however, as none of the changes to tax policy that Dayton sought were legally enacted.Michael, p. 32. "[N]one of the tax and policy changes [Dayton] sought were enacted into law. The legislature effectively won the budget and policy battle, but the governor won the legal war by firmly establishing the principle that a governor can use the item veto for any purpose..." The Legislature's session in 2018 was marked by continued discord between the Republican and DFL parties; many of the most significant bills from the session were ultimately vetoed by Dayton, including bills regarding tax reforms and further budgetary appropriations.

Both houses also approved a plan that allowed Beshear to move the funds from the second year of the budget, but triggered automatic spending cuts if the managed care plans did not generate sufficient savings. The bill also called for the hiring of an independent accounting firm to assess the savings achieved by the managed care plans. Beshear then used his line-item veto to strike the spending cuts and the savings assessment provisions, per a previous arrangement with Democratic lawmakers. By eliminating these provisions, the version of the bill signed by Beshear was essentially the plan he had proposed during the regular session.

President Obama ultimately signed the 2012 NDAA with the contentious provisions, but in February 2012, issued a set of broad waivers that allowed U.S. law enforcement agencies "to retain custody of al-Qaeda terrorism suspects rather than turn them over to the military" as contemplated by the NDAA. Human Rights Watch said that Obama's waiver was "essentially a 3,450-word line-item veto, rendering the mandatory military detention provision mostly moot."Sari Horwitz & Peter Finn, Obama issues waivers for terrorism detention rules, Washington Post (February 28, 2012). McKeon said if forced to choose between tax increases and cuts to the Pentagon budget, he would choose tax increases.

This, the Court held, amounted to the House of Representatives passing legislation without the concurrence of the Senate, and without presenting the legislation to the President for consideration and approval (or veto). Thus, the Constitutional principle of bicameralism and the separation of powers doctrine were disregarded in this case, and this legislative veto of executive decisions was struck down. In 1996, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. This act allowed the President to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures from appropriations bills instead of vetoing the entire bill and sending it back to Congress.

Gerhardt has assisted members of Congress and the White House on a range of various constitutional issues, beginning with drafting the judicial selection policy for the transition of Bill Clinton into office. Gerhardt then worked with the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal. He has testified several times before the House Judiciary Committee, including as the only joint witness in the 1998 hearing on the history of U.S. impeachment, during the consideration of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Also, he was one of only two legal scholars to testify against the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which the Supreme Court struck down in Clinton v.

In late June 2011, Christie utilized New Jersey's line item veto to eliminate nearly $1 billion from the proposed budget, signing it into law just hours prior to the July 1, 2011, beginning of the state's fiscal year. In 2010, Christie signed legislation to limit annual property tax growth to 2 percent. During his second year in office, Christie signed into law a payroll tax cut reducing funding of the Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) fund by $190 million per year. Effective calendar year 2012, the tax cut authorizes the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development to reduce payroll deduction for most employees from $148 to $61 per year.

The first and only budget impasse that occurred during the Tom Corbett administration took place during the negotiations over the 2014-2015 state budget. The fiscal year elapsed without a signed budget, as Corbett withheld his signature from a $29.1 billion budget passed by the Republican-controlled legislature, citing the absence of pension reform. The impasse ended on July 10, when Corbett ultimately signed the Legislature's budget proposal, which continued to lack pension reform. When signing the budget, the Governor used his line item veto power to cut $65 million, or 20 percent, of the Legislature's operating budget, a move that drew criticism from state lawmakers.

He leaned heavily toward the Radical camp and often sided with their Reconstruction policies, signing into law Force Acts to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan. In foreign policy Grant won praise for the Treaty of Washington, settling the Alabama Claims issue with Britain through arbitration. Economically he sided with Eastern bankers and signed the Public Credit Act that paid U.S. debts in gold specie, but was blamed for the severe economic depression that lasted 1873–1877.C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey Grant, wary of powerful congressional leaders, was the first president to ask for a line item veto—though Congress never allowed one.

In these co-written works with Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Campbell and Jamieson create a monumental framework for analyzing the rhetoric surrounding presidential oratory. They argue that the presidency is defined by what the president says and how they say it. Through the framework that Campbell and Jamieson create, they describe the different situations and actions in which presidents operate, such as inaugural addresses, special inaugural addresses in the ascension of a vice president, national eulogies, pardoning rhetoric, state of the union addresses, veto messages, the signing statement as the de facto item veto, presidential war rhetoric, presidential rhetoric of self-defense, and the rhetoric of impeachment. This work covers all the presidents up to George W. Bush.

Economist Martin Sullivan, in a report for Tax Analysts, concluded that tax cuts in Florida totaled $13 billion during the eight-year Bush era; Sullivan's figure is not adjusted for inflation and excludes the estate tax (because it required no legislative action to go into effect). The tax cuts resulted in tax savings by 2006 of 140 per person, per year. Bush vetoed $2 billion from state budgets (Florida has a line-item veto). According to a National Association of State Budget Officers report, state spending in Florida was cut by an average of 1.39 percent each year that Bush was in office as governor, with most cuts coming from public assistance, higher education, and state discretionary spending.

The money would be reallocated to contribute over $1 billion toward the state pension system's liabilities, which exceeded $30 billion. Republicans agreed to fund a Democratic proposal for a scholarship program providing free community college tuition for qualified students, relented on their demands to stop state funding for Planned Parenthood, and spared the state's prevailing wage guidelines. Bevin signed the budget, but used his line-item veto to strip funding for the scholarship program in the first year of the biennium, saying the guidelines were poorly written and should be revised before implementing the program in 2017. Because of the constitutional prohibition against the legislative session extending past April 15, the General Assembly was unable to override the veto.

The governor of Texas is the chief executive of the U.S. State of Texas, the presiding officer over the executive branch of the Government of Texas, and the commander-in-chief of the Texas National Guard, the state's militia. The governor has the power to consider bills passed by the Texas Legislature, by signing them into law, or vetoing them, and in bills relating to appropriations, the power of a line-item veto. He may convene the legislature, and grant pardons and reprieves,Upon recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles except in cases of impeachment, and upon the permission of the legislature, in cases of treason. The State provides an official residence, the Governor's Mansion in Austin.

In these two works, Campbell and Jamieson create a monumental framework for analyzing the rhetoric surrounding presidential oratory. They argue that the presidency is defined by what the president says and how they say it. Through the framework that Campbell and Jamieson create, they describe the different situations and actions in which presidents operate, such as inaugural addresses, special inaugural addresses in the ascension of a vice president, national eulogies, pardoning rhetoric, state of the union addresses, veto messages, the signing statement as the de facto item veto, presidential war rhetoric, presidential rhetoric of self-defense, and the rhetoric of impeachment. This work covers all the presidents up to George W. Bush.

Course of Bills, Oklahoma House of Representatives (accessed May 14, 2013) The governor has the power of the line-item veto, which allows them to sign part of appropriation bills into law, while sending appropriations items they disagree with back to the legislature. Items disapproved by the governor in this manner become void, unless the legislation is re-passed in both the Oklahoma House of Representatives and Oklahoma Senate with a two-thirds vote in favor of overriding the veto. Bills that are part of the governor's agenda are often drafted at the initiative of the governor or governor's staff. In annual and special messages to the Oklahoma Legislature, the governor may propose legislation.

He repeatedly voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment and giving the President the line-item veto, both of which were measures strongly favored by fiscal conservatives in both parties. On foreign policy issues, he frequently voted with more liberal Democrats to terminate restrictions on travel to communist Cuba, and in support of the United Nations and foreign aid. Johnston was the only member of either house of Congress to vote against a 1995 resolution to allow Taiwan's president Lee Teng-hui to visit the United States. During his tenure as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, he was recognized as the nation's pre-eminent legislator on energy policy.

Christopher Memminger, the principal author of the Provisional Constitution All committee members were well educated and had extensive legislative experience. The necessity of a constitution made them work with considerable speed and report to the convention on February 7. Copies were then made and distributed to the convention's members, who spent relatively little time on debate. The key changes to the committee's draft were an inclusion of the phrase "Invoking the favor of Almighty God" into the preamble, the addition of an executive line- item veto, a removal of a congressional restriction of 15% on import tariffs, and the combination of the circuit and district court systems into one district system in which each state comprised one district.

Bean's business and financial record includes opposing a bill that would have allowed for drilling for oil in Lake Michigan which is a large source of drinking water for her district. She has departed from the Democrats in voting in May 2006 to extend about $70 billion in tax cuts (she was one of just 15 Democrats to back the legislation), voting to permanently reduce the estate tax, and voting in favor of a presidential line-item veto. Similarly, she is one of only 15 Democrats to vote in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). In 2009, she voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Waterville City Hall (2014) Waterville has a mayor and council- manager form of government, led by a mayor and a seven-member city council. The city council is the governing board, and the city manager is the chief administrative officer of the city, responsible for the management of all city affairs. Waterville adopted a city charter in the 1970s.Rachel Ohm, Waterville city manager responds to criticism about idea of eliminating wards, Morning Sentinel (December 13, 2018). For some 40 years, the city had a "strong mayor" system in which the mayor enjoyed broad executive powers, including the power to veto measures passed by the city council and to line-item veto budget items passed by the council.

Skaggs also co-sponsored the Energy Act of 1992 that, among other things, amended utility laws to increase clean energy use and improve overall energy efficiency in the United States and mandated installation of low flush toilets in all new homes. Additionally, Skaggs was a co-sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, outlawing discrimination based on disability. Notwithstanding his efforts to uphold civility and restore bipartisan comity to the House, Skaggs was often criticized for being partisan and voting along party lines. Though he was well known for his liberal voting record, he was a strong opponent both of the presidential line-item veto, once suing to block it, and President Clinton's use of military force without congressional approval.

As the 111th Congress began, McCain returned to some of his past legislative themes, joining with old partner Russ Feingold to introduce bills limiting earmarks and re-proposing the line item veto. In late January 2009, following the controversial processes in the New York senate appointment and Illinois senate appointments, McCain teamed with Feingold and Alaska Senator Mark Begich to sponsor a proposed constitutional amendment that would call for Senate vacancies to always be filled by special election rather than being initially filled by gubernatorial appointment. However, in general McCain did not have a lengthy set of legislation he was interested in pushing. Also in January 2009, McCain announced the creation of a new political action committee, the Country First PAC.

In the 1994 midterm elections, Republicans ran on a platform that included fiscal responsibility drafted by then-Congressman Newt Gingrich called the Contract with America which advocated such things as balancing the budget, providing the President with a line-item veto and welfare reform. After the elections gave the Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives, newly minted Speaker of the House Gingrich pushed aggressively for reduced government spending which created a confrontation with the White House that climaxed in the 1995–1996 government shutdown. After Clinton's re-election in 1996, they were able to cooperate and pass the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20% and the 15% rate to 10%.

In 1980, Mattingly scored a historic upset, defeating longtime Democratic Senator Herman Talmadge, outpolling Ronald Reagan who lost the state in the Presidential election to Jimmy Carter. Mattingly served in the Senate from January 1981 until January 1987, with membership on the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, chairing first the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and later the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Mattingly also served at various times on the Senate Banking Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee and the Ethics Committee. He is perhaps best remembered as a proponent of the line-item veto, a position that earned him recognition by President Ronald Reagan during his 1985 State of the Union Address.

An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget unless sanctioned by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, January 26, 1995, but rejected by the US Senate: Roll Call 65–35 (the amendment was defeated by a single vote, with one Republican opposed, Oregon Republican Senator Mark Hatfield; Dole cast a procedural vote against the amendment to bring it up again in the future), March 2, 1995, two-thirds required. Legislation (not an amendment) provided the president with a line- item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House Roll Call: 294–134, February 6, 1995; conferenced with S. 4 and enacted with substantial changes April 9, 1996).

The current Constitution of Peru differs from the 1979 Constitution in that it gives greater power to the president. For example, it allowed for reelection, reduced the bicameral 240-member congress to a unicameral 120 Congress of the Republic, not only affirmed the president's power to veto found in the 1979 Constitution, but also gave him the power to use a line item veto, and mandated that all tax laws receive prior approval by the Ministry of Economics and Finance. While the Constitution of 1979 allowed the president to dissolve congress after congress censured cabinet members three times, the current constitution allows the president to do so after only two censures. The Constitution allows the president to decree laws as long as he first informs the Congress of his intent to do so.

Activities continued in the UCLA and UC Berkeley Institutes, but both changed their names in 2007 to the current Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, along with the establishment of the Miguel Contreras Labor Program which supported UC-wide labor research programs. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto to eliminate $5.4 million funding the Miguel Contreras Labor Program. Governor Schwarzenegger argued that the budget cuts were necessary in order to save money for the state, and the veto was not a commentary on the value of the programs. However, Chris Tilly, the director of the UCLA IRLE argued that saving 5.4 million from the 3.3 billion UC funding was insignificant; full funding cuts overburden faculty, staff, and students that worked hard to build up the UC labor studies program.

During the campaign, Robb won the endorsement of Reagan's Naval Secretary (and future Democratic senator) Jim Webb, and high-profile Republicans such as Elliot Richardson, William Ruckelshaus, and William Colby. Following his re-election in 1994, Robb continued to promote fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense; he was the only Senate Democrat to vote for all items in the Republican Party's "Contract with America" when they reached the floor, including a Balanced Budget Amendment and a line item veto. He became the only senator to serve on all three national security committees: Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence. After two terms in the Senate and 25 years in statewide politics, he was defeated in a close race in 2000 by his Republican opponent, George Allen, who was also a former governor.

The bill is then reconsidered, and if a simple majority of the members of both houses agrees to the proposed executive amendments, it is returned to the governor, as he revised it, for his signature. The governor is also permitted the line-item veto on appropriations bills. In contrast to the practice of most states and the federal government (which require a supermajority, usually 2/3, to override a veto), a simple majority of the members of each house can choose to approve a vetoed bill precisely as the Legislature originally passed it, in which case it becomes a law over the governor's veto. If the governor fails to return a bill to the legislative house in which it originated within six days after it was presented to him or her (including Sundays), it becomes a law without their signature.

In 2017, the State of Texas sought its first ever private partner to join in a project to renovate the G. J. Sutton Building in Downtown San Antonio near the Alamodome, according to Mike Novak, the chairman of the Texas Facilities Commission. Local governments in Texas have already entered into such partnerships including the redevelopment of the HemisFair Arena and the construction by Weston Urban of a new Frost Bank Tower in San Antonio. Named for G. J. Sutton, the first African-American elected official in San Antonio, the six-acre complex was vacated by the state in 2014 because of bat infestation and a deteriorating foundation. In 2015, Governor Greg Abbott, counter to the wishes of Mayor Ivy Taylor, used his line-item veto to remove $132 million which would have funded the rehabilitation of The Sutton.

Pawlenty used or threatened vetoes in 2005, 2007 and 2008 on legislation funding proposed highway expansion, infrastructure repairs, road maintenance, and mass transit. The 2008 veto was in spite of Pawlenty's announcement that he would consider reversing his opposition to a state gas-tax increase for funding road and bridge repairs in the wake of the collapse of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Pawlenty had opposed the Northstar Commuter Rail as a legislator, but changed his position in 2004, announcing a funding plan to jump-start the project, when the Bush administration determined the rail line was deemed cost-effective and time- saving for commuters. In April 2008, during the budget bonding bill signing, Pawlenty used his line-item veto on $70 million for building the Central Corridor light-rail project intended to connect Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

In 2007, Jindal led the Louisiana House delegation and ranked 14th among House members in requested earmark funding at nearly $97 million (however in over 99% of these requests, Jindal was a co-sponsor and not the primary initiator of the earmark legislation). $5 million of Jindal's earmark requests were for state defense and indigent healthcare related expenditures, another $50 million was for increasing the safety of Louisiana's waterways and levees after breaches following Hurricane Katrina, and the remainder was targeted towards coastal restoration and alternative energy research. As governor, in 2008, Jindal used his line item veto to strike $16 million in earmarks from the state budget but declined to veto $30 million in legislator-added spending. Jindal vetoed over 250 earmarks in the 2008 state budget, twice the total number of such vetoes by previous governors in the preceding 12 years.

President Reagan began by announcing that his speech would not be a litany of achievements over the past seven years of his administration, but that he would continue to propose policy initiatives. He outlined the following objectives: # Keep the economy strong and growing # Review the state of social programs # Continue spreading democracy around the world # Maintain a strong defense Reagan discussed the federal deficit, the size of the federal budget, abortion, crime, drugs, the line-item veto, foreign relations and the Soviet–Afghan War. He famously summarized the effect of government intervention on the poor: In closing he returned to his vision of America as a city on a hill: "We can be proud ... that another generation of Americans has protected and passed on lovingly this place called America, this shining city on a hill, this government of, by, and for the people." The speech lasted approximately 44 minutes and consisted of 4,955 words.

In 2007, Pawlenty signed into law the 2007 Omnibus Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, which provided funding for the Health Care Transformation Task Force, a panel of health care experts charged with exploring ways to reduce health care spending, improve quality, and ensure that Minnesota develops a universal health care plan by 2011. Later in his tenure he used health care funding cuts as a mechanism to balance the state budget. After years of assuring doctors that the state "sick tax" would be used only to fund health welfare programs, in 2009 Pawlenty recommended a 3% cut in physician reimbursements from the state and asked that the sick tax be put instead into the state's general budget. Pawlenty used a line-item veto to remove $381 million from health and human services funding, a removal which could lead to 35,000 Minnesotans' losing their General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) health insurance in 2011.

During the next several decades following the vote in 1919, public opinion reversed in support of a strong mayor, elected by citizens. In a straw poll conducted by The Palm Beach Post in 1990, 78.5% of respondents indicated that they wanted to directly elect the mayor. Later that year, a five-member committee began collecting signatures for a petition to force a vote. The group collected 1,638 signatures, one more than required. Under their proposal, the mayor would be elected to a four-year term and be eligible for re-election once, the city manager and mayor would share administrative duties, and the mayor would receive the power to veto commission votes, which could be overridden by a 4-1 vote. Additionally, the mayor would be authorized to line-item veto the budget, initiate investigations, and supervise contracts and purchases involving more than $5,000. This proposal was listed on the ballot as Question 2. In response, the city commission submitted Question 1, which effective added a weak mayor.

Several political factors influence the cost and eligibility of tax-funded health care, according to a study conducted by Gideon Lukens, which found salient factors affecting eligibility included "party control, the ideology of state citizens, the prevalence of women in legislatures, the line-item veto, and physician interest group size," and which supported the generalized hypothesis that Democrats favor generous eligibility policies, while Republicans do not. When the Supreme Court allowed states to decide whether to expand Medicaid or not in 2012, northern states, in which Democrat legislators predominated, disproportionately did so, often also extending existing eligibility. Certain states in which there is a Republican-controlled legislature may be forced to expand Medicaid in ways extending beyond increasing existing eligibility in the form of waivers for certain Medicaid requirements so long as they follow certain objectives. In its implementation, this has meant using Medicaid funds to pay for low-income citizens’ health insurance; this private-option was originally carried out in Arkansas but was adopted by other Republican-led states.

In 1991, Pennacchio sent a 94-page white paper called the "Nationalist Agenda" to then-New Jersey General Assembly minority leader Chuck Haytaian. The manifesto, among other things, called for a new "Nationalist Party;" Balanced Budget Amendment; Line-item Veto Amendment; Term Length/Limit Amendment (six- year terms for presidents, senators, and congressmen and twelve-year term limits for each office); Anti-Racism Amendment; Amend the 2nd Amendment to allow for regulation and banning of certain guns and ammunition; Death Penalty Amendment (make murder a federal crime and ensure that the death penalty is allowed); Equal Rights Amendment (albeit slightly amended); Flag-Burning Amendment; abolition of the Electoral College; establishment of regional presidential primaries; Establishment of a federal "Department of Science"; national lottery (funded by voluntary $52-per-year contributions on tax returns; only those participating would be eligible to win), school vouchers; reforms to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare Reform; letting the homeless stay in military bases; and mandatory military service for non- violent criminals. This has been referred to by his primary opponent as a "fascist manifesto". Sabrin called for him to drop out of the Senate race and resign from the State Senate.

In 1998, Terry Branstad chose not to seek re- election after 16 years as governor. The Iowa Republican Party nominated Jim Ross Lightfoot, a former U.S. Representative. Vilsack defeated former Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark McCormick in the Democratic primary and chose Sally Pederson as his running mate. Lightfoot was the odds-on favorite to succeed Branstad and polls consistently showed him in the lead. However, Vilsack narrowly won the general election and became the first Democrat to serve as governor of Iowa in 30 years and only the fifth Democrat to hold the office in the 20th century. During the 2000 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination between Vice President Al Gore and former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley, he remained neutral. In 2002 he won his second term in office by defeating Republican challenger attorney Doug Gross by eight percentage points. Governor Tom Vilsack in 2008. In first year of his second term, Vilsack used a line-item veto, later ruled unconstitutional by the Iowa Supreme Court, to create the Grow Iowa Values Fund, a $503 million appropriation designed to boost the Iowa economy by offering grants to corporations and initiatives pledged to create higher-income jobs.

Rebecca Mae Salokar, "Representing Congress: Protecting Institutional and Individual Members' Rights in Court," in Colton C. Campbell and John F. Stack, eds., Congress and the Politics of Emerging Rights (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 109, available online, accessed July 6, 2012 BLAG has acted in a wide range of cases. In 1997, BLAG filed an amicus brief in Raines v. Byrd, an unsuccessful challenge to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.Judithanne Scourfield McLauchlan, Congressional participation as amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court (LFB, 2005), 125, 169 During consideration of Dickerson v. United States (2000), BLAG submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit and to the Supreme Court arguing that judicial review of a statute should not extend to the political considerations underlying its enactment.Neal Devins, "Asking the Right Questions: How the Courts Honored the Separation of Powers by Reconsidering Miranda," in University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 149, no. 1 (November 2000), 265n70, 272n91, 274n97 In 2002, when a group of Democratic congressmen sued the Bush administration over access to census information, BLAG's Republican majority had the Office of House Council oppose them and argue that courts should not interfere in such disputes between the executive and legislative branches.