I think consequentalism is a form of ethics, where emotivism is a system of meta-ethics, so they aren't mutually exclusive. A form of conseuentalism may value emotional states to be maximised (say, in Hedonism) which might be determined in relation to our emotional evaluations. The ethical moment to which an emotivist would react to might be in the consequence of the action or in reaction to the maxim governing action.
Ayer's belief that morals are subjective, lacking a truth value, means that the meta-ethical system of emotivism can be alligned with any ethical system.
A simple definition of emotivism is that when people say something morally, it does not mean that it is true, but that it only expresses the feelings of the speaker.
consequentialism
approves of the act.
Emotivism is also known as noncognitivism.
Vetoes are overridden by 2/3 vote from The House and Senate.
Methods which are declared final cannot be overridden.
John Tyler was the first to have a veto overridden.
Consequentialism is an attractive ethical approach because it provides clear and practical guidance – at least in situations where outcomes are easy to predict. The theory is also impartial.
I am not sure what you mean. Congress has overridden some presidential vetoes.
Sure. An overridden method can return anything it wants.
Precedence of operators in an expression overridden by the use of parentheses
Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act.