Jump to content

Talk:Clinton v. City of New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Note: The source of all the substantive information in this article is the texts of the opinions of the Justices who decided the case. -- Centrx 23:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

You have good material here, but I would rewrite that first sentence so what you're defining comes first, e.g. "Clinton v. City of New York is a Supreme Court decision regarding the Line Item Veto Act.". You should also include the citation to the U.S. Reports right after the first reference. While briefs or the opinion may say "et al", they aren't used anywhere else. Just put Clinton v. City of New York and it'll look fine. Did you include a link to the text of the case, either to Findlaw or the database at Cornell's law school? Ave atque vale!PedanticallySpeaking 19:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Giving the vote tally of the Supreme Court's decision (e.g., 6-3, 7-2) would be nice as well. Funnyhat 06:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Centrx 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks that we shouldn't give an external link (the opinion texts) to a site's nagpage? Surely there's somewhere (maybe Findlaw or the like) where we can directly link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endersdouble (talk • contribs) 20:42, 22 June 2005

It appears that the Cornell site no longer has a nagpage. -- Centrx 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last few sentences describing Scalia's viewpoint are hard for me to understand. Can we just quote him directly? (from http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rules_hear07.htm):

"... there is not a dime's worth of difference between Congress's authorizing the President to cancel a spending item, and Congress's authorizing money to be spent on a particular item at the President's discretion. And the latter has been done since the Founding of the Nation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.112.126 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 January 2006

Comments

[edit]

George W. Bush just asked Congress to give him the line item veto in his State of the Union address! This article could become important.--Alhutch 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton

[edit]

Scuse me for being ignorant but could we know which Clinton is discussed in the article as there is no mention of him. If it is about the former president would somebody be kind enough to link to his article. Lincher 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added him where the article talks about the actual instances of cancellation by the President in the 1997 acts of Congress. Because the law and the decision applied and apply to all Presidents, and applied to Bill Clinton ex officio, in his office as President, I don't think that adding it to the first sentence or introduction is necessary and may clutter the text. -- Centrx 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Collaboration Article Checklist

[edit]

This article was previously a Project Collaboration for WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases.

  1. add an infobox Postdlf beat us to the punch
  2. outline (per the project page's suggested outlines or anything we feel is more appropriate here) this seems to be finished for this article, though subsections might have room for improvement (like the one's I just created)
  3. add relevant categories from Category:United States case law added Separation of Powers, the only one I thought relevant
  4. add subsequent history section with mention of Bush asking for it in State of the Union and any further developments Added information on the new proposed Act and its current status in Congress. RidG Talk 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. create appropriate redirects per the project page The only other way this case is commonly referred to is Clinton v. New York, and that redirect has already been covered. RidG Talk 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. factcheck, source, and copyedit as necessary
  7. check related pages as we go, such as Line Item Veto Act of 1996, Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and others as they come up

PCA comments

[edit]

I've added a checklist of things above that I think we should work on. Feel free to edit it. This article has a primary editor, Centrx who wrote most if it (from what I can tell) who I've contacted. I'll do a few preliminary things, but figured I'd leave the infobox and categories for anyone who wants practice with those. I'll do those in a few days if no one's gotten to it by then.--Chaser T 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing statements

[edit]

When I get a chance, I'll add a section on how scholars have argued this would apply to signing statements (though I know what my professional opinion is). A LEXIS search just popped up 23 law review articles mentioning both this decision and signing statements... Postdlf 02:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I should have read the talk page before making modifications to the article. I've added a brief section summarizing a handful of law review articles on this case. I don't think this overlaps what you are planning to do, however, since it seems that you are addressing mainly how this case connects to signing statements.RidG Talk 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're good; what I have in mind will only complement your section. Postdlf 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byrd Supports Line-Item Veto

[edit]

From the current article under Subsequent developments:

"However, Byrd noted that he supported the core idea of line-item vetoes."

This is confusing. The quote from the uncited source CNN article reads:

"Despite his vehemence Tuesday, Byrd supported the core idea when it was offered as a Democratic alternative to the tougher line-item veto law more than a decade ago."

which says something different.

Shouldn't the misleading sentence be taken out? It struck me as improbable in light of his other statements -- Byrd envisions a core line item veto which can't be used as a (his word) weapon?. Is a mention of his ten year old opinion needed at all? What does it add to this article?

This entire paragraph should be cited but the original CNN article is not available at CNN. I found it at:

http://www.byrd2006.com/news/in_the_news_display.cfm?ID=27

but I don't know if this is a proper citation.

Thoughts? Therefore 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clinton v. City of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clinton_v._City_of_New_York&oldid=1205598674"