# data[].attributes.body
Congress an bully people into their will by withholding or increasing funds to programs.
Example: Congress has tried to block the Presidential Agenda.

Extra Information here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

Congress-and in particular, the House of Representatives-is invested with the "power of the purse," the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Massachusetts' Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House "was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings."

Origins

English history heavily influenced the Constitutional framers. The British House of Commons has the exclusive right to create taxes and spend that revenue, which is considered the ultimate check on royal authority. Indeed, the American colonists' cry of "No taxation without representation!" referred to the injustice of London imposing taxes on them without the benefit of a voice in Parliament.

Constitutional Framing

Debate at the Constitutional Convention centered on two issues. The first was to ensure that the executive would not spend money without congressional authorization. The second concerned the roles the House and Senate would play in setting fiscal policy.

At the Convention, the framers considered the extent to which the Senate-like the House of Lords-should be limited in its consideration of budget bills. The provision was part of a compromise between the large and small states. Smaller states, which would be over-represented in the Senate, would concede the power to originate money bills to the House, where states with larger populations would have greater control. Speaking in favor of the provision, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania said, "It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. This end would . . . be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people." The provision in the committee's report to the Convention was adopted, five to three, with three states divided on the question. The Convention reconsidered the matter over the course of two months, but the provision was finally adopted, nine to two, in September 1787.

The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate. The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds-not the President or executive branch agencies. This strongly-held belief was rooted in the framers' experiences with England, where the king had wide latitude over spending once the money had been raised.

The Early Appropriations Process

The First Congress (1789-1791) passed the first appropriations act-a mere 13 lines long-a few months after it convened. The law funded the government, including important pensions for Revolutionary War veterans, with just $639,000-an amount in the tens of millions in real terms. This simple process was short-lived. Over time, nine regular appropriation bills emerged and funded such priorities as pensions, harbors, the post office, and the military. These were considered on an annual basis by the late 1850s. The House Committee on Ways and Means, which also had jurisdiction over tax policy, controlled the appropriations process. But legislation and funding were always kept separate. Priorities were spelled out in one law and money appropriated for those priorities in another. This has remained the practice, as substantive committees design authorization acts and the House and Senate Appropriation Committees fund authorized programs later. Indeed, there are laws and parliamentary rules against making new law in appropriation bills, although such rules are periodically waived.

Subsequent Reforms

In 1865, after the Civil War had created a nearly $3 billion national debt and spending exceeded a billion dollars a year, Congress reformed its funding process to handle the government's new demands. The House separated the Ways and Means Committee's taxing and spending functions. The Appropriations Committee was established to fund programs, while Ways and Means retained jurisdiction on tax policy. House leadership and other committees also tried to influence the appropriations process, and the lack of coordination over the years led to high deficits and the implementation of the federal income tax in 1913. Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act in 1921 to address some of the coordination problems it faced funding government programs. This law centralized many of the budgeting functions with the President, who still has considerable agenda-setting power with the federal budget and submits a draft budget to Congress at the beginning of every year. The appropriations process has been reformed multiple times since 1921, including notable restructurings with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Acts of 1985 and 1987.

For Further Reading

Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937).

Garfield, James. "National Appropriations and Misappropriations," North American Review, 270: 572-586.

Kiewiet, D. Roderick and Mathew D. McCubbins. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991).

Kimmel, Lewis. Federal Budget and Fiscal Policy, 1789-1958. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1959).

Leloup, Lance. The Fiscal Congress. (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1980).

Schick, Allen. Congress and Money: Budgeting, Spending and Taxing. (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1980).

-. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2000).

Selko, Daniel. The Federal Financial System. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1940).

Stewart, Charles H., III. Budget Reform Politics: The Design of the Appropriations Process in the House of Representatives, 1865-1921. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Wildavsky, Aaron B. Budgeting and Governing. (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006).

-. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. 5th ed. (New York: Longman, 2003).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."- U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."- U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Look at this link, and watch the increasing amount of executive orders have been administered.

Example: Executive Order 9066

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation

In an atmosphere of World War II hysteria, President Roosevelt, encouraged by officials at all levels of the federal government, authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, dated February 19, 1942, gave the military broad powers to ban any citizen from a fifty- to sixty-mile-wide coastal area stretching from Washington state to California and extending inland into southern Arizona. The order also authorized transporting these citizens to assembly centers hastily set up and governed by the military in California, Arizona, Washington state, and Oregon. Although it is not well known, the same executive order (and other war-time orders and restrictions) were also applied to smaller numbers of residents of the United States who were of Italian or German descent. For example, 3,200 resident aliens of Italian background were arrested and more than 300 of them were interned. About 11,000 German residents-including some naturalized citizens-were arrested and more than 5000 were interned. Yet while these individuals (and others from those groups) suffered grievous violations of their civil liberties, the war-time measures applied to Japanese Americans were worse and more sweeping, uprooting entire communities and targeting citizens as well as resident aliens.

Executive Order No. 9066
The President
Executive Order

Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.

This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The White House,

February 19, 1942.

[F.R. Doc. 42-1563; Filed, February 21, 1942; 12:51 p.m.]

Source: Executive Order No. 9066, February 19, 1942.

See Also:Korematsu v. United States: The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Internment
"Evacuation Was a Mistake": Anger at Being Interned
Milton Eisenhower Justifies the Internment of Japanese Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an atmosphere of World War II hysteria, President Roosevelt, encouraged by officials at all levels of the federal government, authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan.

# data[].attributes.body
These huge court cases define our values and interpret our values. As the court rules, the laws are enforced and legitimize.

Example: Brown vs Board of Education 1954.
This landmark case struck down Jim Crow Laws in the south, and began the true chance for African American's to gain equality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Separate But Equal Doctrine

In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that racially segregated public facilities were legal, so long as the facilities for Black people and whites were equal.

The ruling constitutionally sanctioned laws barring African Americans from sharing the same buses, schools and other public facilities as whites-known as "Jim Crow" laws -and established the "separate but equal" doctrine that would stand for the next six decades.

But by the early 1950s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP) was working hard to challenge segregation laws in public schools, and had filed lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in states such as South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware.

In the case that would become most famous, a plaintiff named Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1951, after his daughter, Linda Brown, was denied entrance to Topeka's all-white elementary schools.

In his lawsuit, Brown claimed that schools for Black children were not equal to the white schools, and that segregation violated the so-called "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment, which holds that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The case went before the U.S. District Court in Kansas, which agreed that public school segregation had a "detrimental effect upon the colored children" and contributed to "a sense of inferiority," but still upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Brown v. Board of Education Verdict

When Brown's case and four other cases related to school segregation first came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court combined them into a single case under the name Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Thurgood Marshall, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, served as chief attorney for the plaintiffs. (Thirteen years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson would appoint Marshall as the first Black Supreme Court justice.)

At first, the justices were divided on how to rule on school segregation, with Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson holding the opinion that the Plessy verdict should stand. But in September 1953, before Brown v. Board of Education was to be heard, Vinson died, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced him with Earl Warren, then governor of California.

Displaying considerable political skill and determination, the new chief justice succeeded in engineering a unanimous verdict against school segregation the following year.

In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that "in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place," as segregated schools are "inherently unequal." As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were being "deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

Little Rock Nine

In its verdict, the Supreme Court did not specify how exactly schools should be integrated, but asked for further arguments about it.

In May 1955, the Court issued a second opinion in the case (known as Brown v. Board of Education II), which remanded future desegregation cases to lower federal courts and directed district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation "with all deliberate speed."

Though well intentioned, the Court's actions effectively opened the door to local judicial and political evasion of desegregation. While Kansas and some other states acted in accordance with the verdict, many school and local officials in the South defied it.

In one major example, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the state National Guard to prevent Black students from attending high school in Little Rock in 1957. After a tense standoff, President Eisenhower deployed federal troops, and nine students-known as the " Little Rock Nine"- were able to enter Central High School under armed guard.

Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Though the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board didn't achieve school desegregation on its own, the ruling (and the steadfast resistance to it across the South) fueled the nascent civil rights movement in the United States.

In 1955, a year after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Her arrest sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and would lead to other boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations (many of them led by Martin Luther King Jr.), in a movement that would eventually lead to the toppling of Jim Crow laws across the South.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, backed by enforcement by the Justice Department, began the process of desegregation in earnest. This landmark piece of civil rights legislation was followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

In 1976, the Supreme Court issued another landmark decision in Runyon v. McCrary, ruling that even private, nonsectarian schools that denied admission to students on the basis of race violated federal civil rights laws.

By overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine, the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education had set the legal precedent that would be used to overturn laws enforcing segregation in other public facilities. But despite its undoubted impact, the historic verdict fell short of achieving its primary mission of integrating the nation's public schools.

Today, more than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the debate continues over how to combat racial inequalities in the nation's school system, largely based on residential patterns and differences in resources between schools in wealthier and economically disadvantaged districts across the country.

HISTORY Vault: Black History

Sources

History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment, United States Courts.
Brown v. Board of Education, The Civil Rights Movement: Volume I (Salem Press).
Cass Sunstein, "Did Brown Matter?" The New Yorker, May 3, 2004.
Brown v. Board of Education, PBS.org.
Richard Rothstein, Brown v. Board at 60, Economic Policy Institute, April 17, 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brown v. Board of Education: Summary, Ruling & Impact | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can propose bills if backed by a member of congress

# data[].attributes.subject
Can propose bills if backed by a member of congress

# data[].attributes.headline
Judicial Review can check other branches

# data[].attributes.subject
Judicial Review can check other branches

# data[].attributes.body
Families of those killed in the terror attacks on 9/11 are now legally allowed to sue Saudi Arabia, after Congress voted Wednesday to override President Barack Obama's veto of the legislation, the first override of his presidency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Families of those killed in the terror attacks on 9/11 are now legally allowed to sue Saudi Arabia, after Congress voted Wednesday to override President Barack Obama's veto of the legislation, the first override of his presidency.

The votes by the House and Senate were overwhelming. Members of both parties broke into applause on the House floor after the vote.

The Senate approved the override on a 97-1 vote, with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid the lone Senator voting to sustain the president's veto. Hours later, the vote in the House was 348-77, with one Democratic member voting "present."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said aboard Air Force One before the House had voted that the Senate's override is the "single most embarrassing thing the Senate has done since 1983," referring to the last time the Senate overrode a veto by such a large margin.

The remark immediately infuriated lawmakers and staffers.

"It's amateur hour at the White House," one Democratic aide said.

"Asking us to stand between 9/11 families and their day in court is asking a lot," Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said in response.

Obama told CNN's Jake Tapper Wednesday that members of Congress made a "political vote" by voting overwhelmingly to override his veto.

"It's an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what's hard," he said in a CNN town hall. "If you're perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do ... And it was, you know, basically a political vote,"

In the House, New Jersey GOP Rep. Chris Smith urged members to override the President's veto, showing a poster of a New York Daily News edition after Congress initially approved the bill with a picture of Obama standing with the Saudi King and the headline: "Don't choose THEM before U.S."

Smith said, "The President chose the King and he vetoed the bill and we can correct that here today."

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, did not vote.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, on behalf of the Donald Trump campaign, said Wednesday that the President's veto an "was an insult to the families of those we lost on 9/11, and I congratulate the Congress for righting that terrible wrong."

He also criticized Kaine, saying, "The failure of Hillary Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, who was obviously afraid to show up to work today and stand with these Americans, is a disgrace."

Clinton has said publicly she supported the legislation. Kaine, who is campaigning and fundraising on Wednesday, would have voted to override had he been in attendance, his office said.

The bipartisan vote on the Hill was a rebuke of the President who had argued the Justice for State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) -- which for the first time would allow suits in American courts against state sponsors of terrorist attacks inside the US -- could open the US government to lawsuits for the actions of military service members and diplomats.

Obama also warned it could damage America's relationship with Saudi Arabia, a troubled but key Middle East ally, and other allies who might be accused of terrorism.

But the powerful emotional appeal of providing 9/11 families a legal avenue to pursue justice proved too strong and carried the day

"The victims of 9/11 have fought for 15 long years to make sure that those responsible for the senseless murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children, and injuries to thousands others, are held accountable. JASTA becoming law is a tremendous victory toward that effort," said Terry Strada, National Chair of the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism. "We rejoice in this triumph and look forward to our day in court and a time when we may finally get more answers regarding who was truly behind the attacks,"

The President spoke by phone to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Reid this week to urge them to sustain his veto. In a follow up letter Tuesday, Obama said he was "firmly committed" to assisting the 9/11 families but that JASTA was the wrong approach.

"Enacting JASTA into law ... would neither protect Americans from terrorists attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would instead threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas," Obama wrote. "That is why I vetoed the bill and why I believe you should vote to sustain the veto."

CIA Director John Brennan said Wednesday that "all the national security officials of this government recognize how bad this legislation is for our national security interests and how negatively it's going to effect it."

But sponsors of the measure said it was more important to give the 9/11 families their day in court than to worry about the possible fallout with Saudi Arabia, which they argued wouldn't have anything to worry about if it was not connected to the terror plot.

"How can anyone look at the families in the eye and tell them that they shouldn't have the opportunity to seek justice against a foreign government responsible for the death of their loved one?" asked Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the chief Republican sponsor of the bill. "At the end of the day, this vote is about doing what's right for the American people."

"The bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker because it would allow the victims of the 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice finally giving them the legal avenue to pursue foreign sponsors of a terrorist act that took the lives of their loved ones," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chief Democratic sponsor.

The concerns raised by the White House were echoed by several senior senators who had worked to try to change the legislation before it passed the Senate.

One of those senators, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, said he would watch for possible "blowback" from the law to determine if Congress should rewrite portions of it in the near future. He and other senators wrote a letter to Cornyn and Schumer laying out their concerns.

Despite his misgivings, Corker announced in an emotional speech on the floor he would vote to override the President's veto in order to give the 9/11 families a chance to seek justice.

CNN's Manu Raju, Kevin Liptak and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 28, 2016: 1:02 PM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress overrides Obama's veto of 9/11 bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The votes by the House and Senate were overwhelming. Members of both parties broke into applause on the House floor after the vote. The Senate approved the override on a 97-1 vote, with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid the lone Senator voting to sustain the president's veto.

# data[].attributes.body
President Andrew Johnson

# data[].attributes.body
President Richard Nixion

# data[].attributes.body
War of 1812
World War 1
World War 2

# data[].attributes.body
race
religion
color
sex
national origin

# data[].attributes.body
President Bill Clinton

# data[].attributes.headline
in  the 6th century the Lydians were the first to coin money.

# data[].attributes.subject
in  the 6th century the Lydians were the first to coin money.

# data[].attributes.body
rejected President Bush's veto of legislation protecting doctors from a 10.6 percent cut in their reimbursement rates when treating Medicare patients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress on Tuesday rejected President Bush's veto of legislation protecting doctors from a 10.6 percent cut in their reimbursement rates when treating Medicare patients.
The override vote in the House was a lopsided 383-41, easily meeting the two-thirds threshold needed to nullify the president's veto. About an hour later, the Senate voted to override, 70-26.

It was the fourth Bush veto to be overridden by Congress, reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller. It was the 12th veto of the Bush presidency.

Lawmakers were under pressure from doctors and the elderly patients they serve to void the rate cut, which kicked in on July 1. The cut is based on a formula that establishes lower reimbursement rates when Medicare spending levels exceed established targets.

The president said he supported rescinding the pay cut, but he objected to the way lawmakers would finance the plan, largely by reducing spending on private health plans serving the elderly and disabled.

"I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments," Bush said in a statement. "Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong."

About 600,000 doctors treat Medicare patients. Many said they would no longer accept new elderly patients if the cuts stood.

Democratic lawmakers used a variety of terms to describe Bush's veto earlier Tuesday. Some called it "meaningless." Others called it "mean-spirited."

"His days of doing us harm are very, very limited," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Instead of a cut, the legislation would keep Medicare rates for doctors where they are for the rest of 2008 and would increase them by 1.1 percent in 2009. The legislation generates the revenue necessary to pay doctors more by reducing spending on private health insurance plans. Those plans serve more than 9 million people through the Medicare Advantage program.

Insurers and the Bush administration argued the changes Democrats sought would lead to benefit cuts and to fewer Medicare Advantage plans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that over the course of five years, enrollment in Medicare Advantage would grow to 12 million rather than to 14.3 million.

Bush said the bill would reduce "access, benefits and choices for all beneficiaries."

"We don't have to punish the patients to help the doctors," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

However, Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans believe the government's payments to the plans are too generous and that those payments drive up costs for taxpayers as well as the 44 million participants in the program.

"We wasted no time in reversing the president's carelessness and protecting our nation's doctors and the patients they treat," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This responsible and overdue Medicare fix is now law."

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said the federal government spends more on patients in Medicare Advantage than on comparable patients in traditional Medicare, leading to billions of dollars in additional costs annually.

"We take some of that unnecessary waste and we use it to pay physicians who are working hard and ought not to have a cut in their reimbursement rates," Doggett said.

While the focus on the bill has largely been on changes for doctors and private insurers, virtually every type of health care provider as well as millions of patients have a stake in the legislation.

For Medicare recipients, lawmakers lowered the copayments for mental health treatment and allowed more people to qualify for the government's help in paying their monthly premiums.

For providers, such as pharmacists, the legislation ensured that they're paid promptly by Medicare drug plans and delayed changes that would have cut their reimbursements when dispensing generic drugs for Medicaid patients.

Military families also had a stake as its TRICARE program set reimbursement levels based on Medicare, and lawmakers raised concerns leading up to the vote that those families would have a hard time finding a doctor.

Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, said a 10.6 percent cut "would have been devastating to seniors and the disabled who rely on Medicare for the health care they need, as well as to military families who rely on TRICARE for their health care."

Prior to Bush's veto, the House had voted in favor of the bill 355-59, so Tuesday's override vote showed more Republicans breaking with the administration.

The vote in the Senate in passing the bill last week was much closer, 69-30, leaving little margin for error for supporters trying to sustain a two-thirds majority to override.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress on Tuesday rejected President Bush's veto of legislation protecting doctors from a 10.6 percent cut in their reimbursement rates when treating Medicare patients.The override vote in the House was a lopsided 383-41, easily meeting the two-thirds threshold needed to nullify the president's veto. About an hour later, the Senate voted to override, 70-26.

# data[].attributes.headline
they needed to fiancance the civil war so they started using greenbacks to pay for it.

# data[].attributes.subject
they needed to fiancance the civil war so they started using greenbacks to pay for it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ford’s Freedom of Information Act Veto: 1974

# data[].attributes.subject
Ford’s Freedom of Information Act Veto: 1974

# data[].attributes.body
President Gerald R. Ford’s decision to veto the Freedom of Information Act over turned by congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Barack Obama has received a great deal of critique not only for his executive actions - which some call an overstep of power - but for the bills he's indicated he will veto should they pass through houses of Congress. One example that's come up a few times has been the Keystone XL pipeline, and the currently frozen construction Obama has indicated won't be pushed forward by legislative action. Obama, like other presidents before him, demonstrates that executive action isn't necessarily the most significant power at his disposal.

Historically, some of the biggest decisions from our presidents, ones that have completely changed the course of history from what it could have been, have been vetoes. Let's take a look at 10 of the most important presidential vetoes, from the 1970s to recent years.

1. Nixon's Universal Child Care Veto: 1971

In 1971, President Richard Nixon vetoed the bipartisan Comprehensive Child Development Act, which would have put forward billions toward building a national day care system. The system would have benefited working parents - especially single parent households - and would have helped struggling American families with an alternative to welfare aid. Given present day difficulty with the child care system and working parents, it would have greatly altered current issues.

At the time though, Nixon vetoed the bill, saying it was a " communal approach to child rearing ... against the family-centered approach," according to So Rich, So Poor by Peter Edelman. At a time when communism was hardly the friendliest concept, the argument appealed to conservatives in his party and around America. "The Raising of America" actually worked on a documentary outlining the bill's veto and various responses to it, including video comments from opposing Democrats in Congress and how they responded to his decision.

2. Ford's Freedom of Information Act Veto: 1974

President Gerald R. Ford's decision to veto the Freedom of Information Act in 1974 was thankfully not the last word on the matter - something that is hardly imaginable in today's world. But back in 1974, after Congress passed the bill, Ford vetoed it. According to Politico, declassified 2004 documents show that Ford had actually preferred to sign the bill, but was influenced by both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to put national security over government accountability and transparency. Luckily, the House voted to overturn Ford's veto of the FOIA bill by 371 to 31, and the Senate vote came in at 65 to 27 in favor.

3. Reagan's Apartheid Sanctions Veto: 1986

Looking back on Apartheid in South Africa, it seems abundantly clear that the right moral, political, ethical, human thing to do was to put sanctions in place against a country with inhumane policy supporting a systematic inequality based on race. His veto of the sanctions was motivated by an upcoming meeting with Mikhail S. Gorbachev in Iceland, saying a vote to put sanction on South Africa would weaken his bargaining ability. "Punitive sanctions, I believe, are not the best course of action," said Reagan at the time, according to The New York Times. "They hurt the very people they are intended to help."

Others were quick to criticize his position, including Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-Conn.), saying according to the NYT, " For this moment, at least, the President has become an irrelevancy to the ideals, heartfelt and spoken, of America." The Senate voted to override Reagan's veto, and the Senate overturned it with a vote of 78 to 21.

4. Reagan's Clean Water Act Veto: 1986

The Clean Water Act was pocket vetoed by Reagan in 1986 largely because of costs, according to a memorandum of disapproval published by the president at the time. The bill would have put aside $20 billion toward water treatment, $174 million of that in California over eight years. Unlike past vetoes, for example the apartheid sanctions mentioned earlier, Congress was not given the opportunity to overturn the president's choice because it was not directly vetoed, but instead sat for 10 days before expiring.

Unlike other vetoes, this one was more about the details of the bill than the overall idea. Reagan hoped to rework the details and allocation of funds more specifically before agreeing to a bill, placing more of the fiscal strain on the states. " With the backlog of needed treatment plants financed in major part by the federal government since 1972, it now is necessary for the federal government to reduce its expenditures and complete the transition from federal to state and local responsibility," said Reagan, according to the Los Angeles Times.

5. Bush, Sr.'s Civil Rights Act Veto: 1990

When President George H.W. Bush vetoed the Civil Rights Act in 1990, it had very little chance of surviving a re-vote with the necessary two-thirds majority. He argued that the bill went to far toward a quota system, while opponents argued that it was a step backward on vital legislation for equality.

" I deeply regret having to take this action. But when our efforts, however well-intentioned, result in quotas, equal opportunity is not advanced but thwarted," said Bush of his decision, according to the Los Angeles Times. The bill would have overturned multiple Supreme Court rulings that made it more difficult to take racial discrimination in workforce hiring to court. It also would have allowed for greater compensation in a suit, a longer time period under which to take employers to court, and a number of other measure to mitigate discriminatory labor practices.

6. Clinton's Partial-Birth Abortion Veto: 1996

Similar to Bush's Civil Rights Act, the Partial Birth Abortion bill was vetoed with the knowledge that a two-thirds majority was unlikely to override the president's decision. President Bill Clinton argued that his choice not to let the bill become law was less to do with the controversy of abortion, and more a reaction to the overly general application of the bill.

The Partial-Birth Abortion bill would have made it illegal for women to have a specific later-term abortion procedure done even in the case where the mother's life would be in danger and the process done with the advice of a doctor. " This is not about the pro-choice, pro-life debate," said Clinton, according to CNN. "This is not a bill that should have been injected into that." The president had previously warned that keeping the provision in the bill would make it impossible to pass.

7. Clinton's Estate Tax Veto: 1999

In 1999, Clinton chose to pass on a tax cut that would have lasted over a 10-year period for a total of $792 billion. While not entirely against reducing taxes, he argued the cut would have been too extreme, and had proven ineffective in the past. Republicans argued that it would have alleviated stress from the finances of middle class Americans, while Clinton argued it would reduce necessary funds from areas that need it.

The veto did not come as a surprise to Republicans, however it served its purpose of making Clinton appear concerned with finances of the upper class rather than sympathizing with Americans in lower socioeconomic groups. The criticism has followed both Clintons after Hillary Clinton's commenting that their family had been "dead broke" after leaving the White House.

8. Bush's Stem Cell Research Veto: 2006

President George W. Bush had been in office for a full five years before he vetoed a bill. He utilized the power for the first time after the House and Senate voted in favor of a bill that would have allowed federal funding for stem-cell research.

While it hardly cut out stem-cell research, which by that point was legal and had a complex social and political history, it did prevent national funding from being put to use there. Bush argued that the bill " crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect," saying at the time, "boys and girls are not spare parts," according to CNN.

9. Bush's Withdrawal from Iraq Veto: 2007

Congress pushed through a bill that would demand the beginning of withdrawal from Iraq in 2007, a bill likely meant more to push the president into committing to an extraction plan, than to force him into that particular extraction plan. However Bush was not prepared to commit to a plan at that point, which he made clear, also bluntly calling the bill a political move with little-to-no expectation of actually having an impact.

" I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war," said Bush, according to CNN. "They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need." He also pointed out that announcing a schedule of America's intended withdrawal would be a huge security flaw and would alert enemies to sensitive plans. For that reason alone, it seems likely the legislation was politically motivated, and a re-vote not even considered.

10. Obama's Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act Veto: 2010

The Keystone XL pipeline is hardly the first veto situation that has come up for President Obama, and he's made clear in the past when he intends to veto bills put to Congress. In October of 2010, Obama chose not to sign H.R. 3808, an act that have helped to encourage business transactions over state lines.

The Obama Administration argued the bill was not considered deeply enough and might have " unintended impact ... on consumer protections," such as mortgages. In vetoing the bill, his Administration did emphasize that it was a common goal and left the door open on further work in that area.

More from Politics Cheat Sheet:
Follow Anthea Mitchell on Twitter @AntheaWSCS Check out Politics Cheat Sheet on Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Most Important Presidential Vetoes in Recent History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Barack Obama has received a great deal of critique not only for his executive actions - which some call an overstep of power - but for the bills he's indicated he will veto should they pass through houses of Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
Abolished Slavery
Involuntary servitude

# data[].attributes.body
Only 18.5% of wars we have fought in were declared
5/27

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says " Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a " declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in , said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

The last time the United States formally declared war, using specific terminology, on any nation was in 1942, when war was declared against Axis-allied Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, because President Franklin Roosevelt thought it was improper to engage in hostilities against a country without a formal declaration of war. Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war.

This article will use the term "formal declaration of war" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "declaration of war" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress," "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.

The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun. James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress. Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard. Public opposition to American involvement in foreign wars, particularly during the 1930s, was expressed as support for a Constitutional Amendment that would require a national referendum on a declaration of war. Several Constitutional Amendments, such as the Ludlow Amendment, have been proposed that would require a national referendum on a declaration of war.

After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution ( Pub.L. 93-148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. The War Powers Resolution proscribes the only power of the president to wage war which is recognized by Congress.

The table below lists the five wars in which the United States has formally declared war against eleven foreign nations. The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany, against which the United States has declared war twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary).

In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Germany and Italy, led respectively by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, declared war on the United States, and the U.S. Congress responded in kind.

In other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that was authorized by Congress.

War or conflict

Opponent(s)

Initial authorization

Votes

President

Result

Senate

House

Quasi-War

An Act further to protect the commerce of the United States
July 9, 1798

18-4

John Adams

Treaty of Mortefontaine

First Barbary War

Morocco

Tripolitania

"An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers", 2 Stat. 129, February 6, 1802[13]

Thomas Jefferson

War ended 1805

Second Barbary War

Algiers

"An Act for the protection of the commerce of the United States against the Algerine cruisers", 3 Stat. 230, May 10, 1815[14]

James Madison

War ended 1816

Enforcing 1808 slave trade ban; naval squadron sent to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders

Slave traders and pirates

"Act in addition to the acts prohibiting the Slave Trade", 3 Stat. 532, 1819

James Monroe

1822 first African-American settlement founded in Liberia, 1823 U.S. Navy stops anti-trafficking patrols

Redress for attack on U.S. Navy's USS Water Witch

1858.[15]

James Buchanan

Mexican Revolution

H.J.R. 251, 38 Stat. 770
April 22, 1914[16]

337-37

Woodrow Wilson

Force withdrawn after six months. However, the Joint Resolution was likely used to authorize the Pancho Villa Expedition. In the Senate, "when word reached the Senate that the invasion had gone forward before the use-of-force resolution had been approved, Republicans reacted angrily" saying it was a violation of the Constitution, but eventually after the action had already started, a resolution was passed after the action to "justify" it since Senators did not think it was a declaration of war.[17][18]

Russian Civil War

Commune of Estonia
Far Eastern Republic
Latvia
Mongolian People's Party
Russia
Ukraine

1918[19]

Woodrow Wilson

Lebanon crisis of 1958

Lebanese Opposition

H.J. Res. 117, Public Law 85-7, Joint Resolution "To promote peace and stability in the Middle East", March 9, 1957[20]

72-19

355-61

Dwight D. Eisenhower

U.S. forces withdrawn, October 25, 1958

Vietnam War

Laotian Civil War

Cambodian Civil War

Mainland China
National United Front of Kampuchea

North Korea
North Vietnam
Pathet Lao
South Vietnam

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964

88-2

416-0

Lyndon B. Johnson

U.S. forces withdrawn under terms of the Paris Peace Accords signed January 27, 1973

Multinational Force in Lebanon

Shia and Druze militias; Syria

S.J.Res. 159
Pub.L. 98-119
September 29, 1983

54-46

253-156

Ronald W. Reagan

Forces withdrawn in 1984

Persian Gulf War

H.J.Res. 77
January 12, 1991.

52-47

250-183

George H.W. Bush

The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

War On Terror

Afghanistan

al-Qaeda

Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya
Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin
Islamic Jihad Union
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Jamaat-ul-Ahrar
Jundallah
Lashkar-e-Islam
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi
Turkistan Islamic Party
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan

High Council of the Islamic Emirate
Fidai Mahaz

al-Itihaad al-Islamiya
Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia
Harakat al-Shabaab Mujahedeen
Hizbul Islam
Islamic Courts Union
Jabhatul Islamiya
Mu'askar Anole
Ras Kamboni Brigades

Abu Sayyaf
Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters
Islamic State
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Maute group
Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao

S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001

98-0

420-1

George W. Bush

Iraq War[21]

H.J. Res. 114,
March 3, 2003

77-23

296-132

George W. Bush

Ba'athist Iraqi government abolished April 2003, Saddam Hussein executed.

War ended December 15, 2011. Destabilization of Iraq and emergence of ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq region 2014-2017.[22]

In many instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.

Military engagement

Opponent(s)

Initial authorization

President

Result

Korean War

Mainland China

North Korea
Soviet Union

UNSCR 84, 1950

Harry S. Truman

Korean Armistice Agreement,[24] 1953

Multinational Force in Lebanon

Shia militias, Druze militias, Syria

UNSCR 425, 1978

UNSCR 426, 1978

Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan

U.S. forces withdrew in 1984

Persian Gulf War

UNSCR 678, 1990

George H. W. Bush

UNSCR 689, 1991

Bosnian War

UNSCR 770, 1992
UNSCR 776, 1992
UNSCR 836, 1993

Bill Clinton

Reflagged as IFOR in 1995, Reflagged as SFOR in 1996, Completed in 2004

Second Liberian Civil War

Peacekeeping

UNSCR 1497, 2003

George W. Bush

U.S. forces are withdrawn in 2003 after the UNMIL is established.

Haitian coup d'état

UNSCR 1529, 2004

UNSCR 1542, 2004

2004

First Libyan Civil War

UNSCR 1973, 2011

Barack Obama

Debellation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, October 31, 2011

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999, and the 2017 missile strikes on Syria.

The United States' longest war was fought between 2001 and 2016 against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These localized conflicts, with Native Americans, began with European colonists coming to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and had concluded by 1918. The United States Army still maintains a campaign streamer for Pine Ridge 1890-1891 despite opposition from certain Native American groups.

The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation by other sovereign states. The CSA was recognized by the United States government as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA's status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so.[citation needed ]

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be deployed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq War[clarification needed ]. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed ] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

On March 21, 2011, a number of lawmakers expressed concern that the decision of President Barack Obama to order the U.S. military to join in attacks of Libyan air defenses and government forces exceeded his constitutional authority because the decision to authorize the attack was made without Congressional permission. Obama explained his rationale in a two-page letter, stating that as commander in chief, he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in scope and duration, and necessary to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Libya.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.