Presentment Clause - Factbites

Presentment Clause - Factbites
Where results make sense
About us | Why use us? | Reviews | PR | Contact us

Topic: Presentment Clause

Note: these results are not from the primary (high quality) database.

	I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
		The Court has identified two such express procedures relating to the separation of executive and legislative powers: the bicameralism and presentment requirements for legislation, and the Appointments Clause.
		The rules of law derived from the requirements of bicameralism/presentment and the Appointments Clause have the clear and powerful effect of invalidating any inconsistent congressional action.
		Just as the textual requirement of bicameralism and presentment limits the means by which Congress may legislate, so the anti-aggrandizement principle limits the means by which Congress may influence the execution (or adjudication) of the laws.
	www.usdoj.gov /olc/delly.htm (14791 words)

	ALERT DIGEST6 of 1994 - 3
		Clause 20 provides that the Chief Crown Prosecutor is responsible to the Director but that nothing empowers the Director to give any direction to the Chief Crown Prosecutor with respect to the presentment of any person for an offence or the performance of his or her functions.
		The Crown Prosecutor may not make presentment if the offence if the decision to which it relates is a special decision.
		Clause 13 provides that the Governor-in-Council may appoint a Chief Crown Prosecutor who is to hold office for a term of 10 years and is eligible for re-appointment.
	www.parliament.vic.gov.au /sarc/94alerts/alert6c.htm (14791 words)

	FindLaw's Writ - Dean: The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
		The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause.
		The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.
		Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch.
	writ.news.findlaw.com /dean/20060113.html (2154 words)

	Fed-Soc.org - The Line Item Veto Act and the Limits of Executive Power - Spring 1997
		A mere statute cannot grant to the President a power that is inconsistent with his role under the Presentment Clause and with his fundamental duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed.
		Viewed in this context, the President's powers under LIVA must logically be viewed either as part of the process by which legislation becomes law (in which case they must comport with the Presentment Clause) or as part of the President's executive powers (in which case they must be executive rather than legislative in nature).
		It would be difficult to imagine a clearer violation of the Framers' commitment of the legislative power to Congress and the executive power to the President.
	www.fed-soc.org /Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/federalism/fd010201.htm (1653 words)

	Clinton v. City of New York
		The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e.
		Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I? Conclusion:
		In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York.
	www.oyez.org /oyez/resource/case/1106/print (374 words)

	John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, The Rights Of Legislators And The Wrongs Of Interpretation: A Further Defense Of The Constitutionality Of Legislative Supermajority Rules, 47 Duke L. J. 327 (1997)
		What Professor Rubenfeld does not recognize is that his interpretation of the Presentment Clause would permit equally troubling rules that our interpretation of the House Composition Clause would prohibit.
		The House Composition Clause provides: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." U.S. art.
		All rules that cannot be repealed by a majority represent an attempt by a majority of one house to give its views a permanent status without going through the intricate amendment process required to entrench the views of one generation against those of future generations.
	www.law.duke.edu /journals/dlj/articles/dlj47p327.htm (374 words)

	Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation, 1998 Supplement
		City of New York, 118 S.Ct. 2091 (1998), in which the Court struck down what Congress had intended to be a delegation to the President, finding that the authority conferred on the President was legislative power, not executive power, which failed because the presentment clause had not and could not have been complied with.
		Apfel, 118 S.Ct. 2131, 2154 (1998) (concurring), Justice Thomas indicated a willingness to reconsider Calder to determine whether the clause should apply to civil legislation.
		Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 29, 36 (1998) (alleged infringement of President's ``take care'' obligation), but this time in dissent; the Court did not advert to this objection in finding that Congress had provided for standing based on denial of information to which the plaintiffs, as voters, were entitled.
	www.gpoaccess.gov /constitution/html/98supp.html (11700 words)

	Clinton v. City of New York (1998) [97-1374]
		Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I? Conclusion
		In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York.
		In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions.
	www.oyez.org /oyez/resource/case/1106 (282 words)

	Reason: Who Gets to Not Spend Our Money?: Why a presidential line-item veto seems like a good idea, but isn't
		In a 6-3 vote, they decided that it violated the Presentment Clause of Article I, which gives the president but two choices when confronted with legislation that has duly passed Congress: signing or vetoing.
		The line-item veto is perfectly common on the state level, with 43 governors enjoying some version of the power, which can include either a full line-item veto or a line-reduction veto.
		A presidential line-item veto would give presidents the less-benevolent power (which Clinton was thought to have tried to use at least once when he had it) to lean on individual legislators to get what they want.
	www.reason.com /links/links022206.shtml (902 words)

	Investigative Oversight: An Introduction to the Law
		She was cited for contempt by the full House and the contempt resolution was certified by the Speaker and forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for presentment to the grand jury.
		Also, some of the requirements imposed by the courts under the statutory criminal contempt procedure might be mandated by the due process clause in the case of inherent contempt proceedings.
		The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over sixty years because it has been considered to be too cumbersome and time consuming for a modern Congress with a heavy legislative workload that would be interrupted by a trial at the bar.
	www.house.gov /rules/95-464.htm (902 words)

	Gilder Lehrman Center: Sources:
		Persons robbed by privateers, during war with a Popish prince, shall be reimbursed by grand jury presentment, and the money be levied upon the goods and lands of Popish inhabitants only.
		The 18th clause provides, that Popish priests, who shall be converted, shall receive 30L.
		And be it enacted, That Papists, or persons professing the Popish or Roman Catholic religion, may be capable of being elected professors of medicine upon the foundation of Sir Patrick Dunn, any law or stature to the contrary notwithstanding.
	www.yale.edu /glc/archive/896.htm (902 words)

	List of Articles
		The Presentment Clause, Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Forthcoming 2003).
		“Symmetric Entrenchment: A Constitutional and Normative Theory, 89 Virginia Law Review 385 (2003) (with John McGinnis).
		Judicial Confirmations: Now is the Time to Retool, The National Law Journal, A 12 (Dec. 16, 2002) (Op.
	home.sandiego.edu /~miker/articles.html (902 words)

	SSRN-A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Viriginia was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha was Wrongly Reasoned by Seth Tillman
		I argue that the Orders, Resolutions and Votes Clause (the ORV Clause) is not a second or residual presentment clause.
		SSRN-A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v.
		To the extent that this interpretation of the ORV Clause can be supported, it establishes that the much criticized Hollingsworth v.
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=475204 (902 words)

	Samuel Chase
		However, in the period between the presentment of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, and the trial, Randolph assailed Jefferson’s attempted compromise of the Yazoo land fraud (which would not be settled until 1814.
		The Court held the act of sale by the Georgia legislature was constitutional under either principles of natural law or the contracts clause, Art.
		The Republicans disaffected with Jefferson's efforts to settle the Yazoo land fraud scandal joined with the nine Federalists to block the 2/3 vote necessary to convict Chase.
	www.michaelariens.com /ConLaw/justices/chasesam.htm (902 words)

	SSRN-A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Viriginia was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha was Wrongly Reasoned by Seth Tillman
		Presentment is necessary, but not bicameralism, where single house orders are first authorized by a prior statute.
		SSRN-A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v.
		At a deeper level it means that our interpretive community -- judges, legal academics, academics in related fields (government, political science, and history), and lawyers generally -- have forgotten what a clause of the Constitution meant, and that recovery of lost meaning required going to a foreigner!
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=475204 (380 words)

	Are Conservatives Naïve or Just Plain Stupid? by Laurence M. Vance
		The district court consolidated the two cases, determined that at least one of the plaintiffs in each case had standing under Article III of the Constitution, and ruled that the Line Item Veto Act’s cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.
		The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ( Public Law 104-130) was enacted in April 1996 and became effective on January 1, 1997.
		The line-item veto was finally put to death by the Supreme Court in the case of Clinton v.
	www.lewrockwell.com /vance/vance39.html (380 words)

	FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 11
		Because ''a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants,'' the Sixth Amendment provision is binding on the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
		42 The jury began in the form of a grand or presentment jury with the role of inquest and was started by Frankish conquerors to discover the King's rights.
		Trial by petit jury was not employed at least until the reign of Henry III, in which the jury was first essentially a body of witnesses, called for their knowledge of the case; not until the reign of Henry VI did it become the trier of evidence.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /data/constitution/amendment06/04.html#1 (380 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)