Line Item Veto: Hearings Before the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session, on S. 43 ... May 14, 20; June 20, 1985 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
absolute veto action Allen Schick amendment appropriations bills approve balanced budget bicameral bill or joint billion branches of government CANNON'S PRECEDENTS Chadha CHAIRMAN Charles McC clause Committee Cong CONGRESS THE LIBRARY congressional constitutional constitutionality D.C. Cir David Stockman decision defense deficit dent enacted enrolling clerk expenditure federal spending Federalist 73 fiscal Founders funding Governor grant gress issues item veto joint resolution Judiciary lative legislative veto legislature LIBRARY OF CONGRESS line-item veto authority Mack Mattingly majority Mathias ment Mikva Office ORNSTEIN override passed percent political procedure programs projects provisions question Reagan reduce Republican requested rescission responsibility riders rules Schick Senator EVANS Senator FORD Senator HATFIELD Senator MATTINGLY separate bill separation of powers Stat Stockman supra note Supreme Court tion tional tive tution two-thirds U.S. CONST U.S. Senate United unnumbered veto power vote Washington
Popular passages
Page 13 - Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
Page 114 - The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.
Page 116 - At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Page 114 - If the opinion of the supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this government. The congress, the executive, and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the constitution.
Page 27 - Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it...
Page 21 - But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.
Page 28 - The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.
Page 133 - Employer' includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee...
Page 110 - If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.
Page 116 - Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.