Clinton v. New York

Question 19 options:

A. upheld the line-item veto as long as the President only vetoes spending bills and both Houses of Congress have the opportunity to override the veto.

B. struck down the line item veto.

C. held that New York may regulate campaign finance as long as its regulations do not infringe on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

D. held that Hillary Clinton could run for the United States Senate from New York even though she had only resided there one day because state law controls the eligibility for running for public office.

Question

Evelin Chen

History

31 December, 14:31

Clinton v. New York

Question 19 options:

A. upheld the line-item veto as long as the President only vetoes spending bills and both Houses of Congress have the opportunity to override the veto.

B. struck down the line item veto.

C. held that New York may regulate campaign finance as long as its regulations do not infringe on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

D. held that Hillary Clinton could run for the United States Senate from New York even though she had only resided there one day because state law controls the eligibility for running for public office.

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Tristan Burgess · Answer 1

The correct answer is B.

Clinton v. New York was a decision enacted by the US Supreme Court in 1998, which stated that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause and, therefore, the US Constitution.

The line-item veto had been introduced by the Line Item Veto Act in 1996 and it allowed the chief of the executive power, the President, to veto fragments or provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. In opposition, the Presentment Clause describes the procedure through which bills originating in Congress, become federal US law. Such procedures only contemplate the president's power or rejecting an entire bill.