Why is the President allowed to veto a cancellation of emergency powers?
This seems like a major bug in checks and balances, since it requires 2/3 majority in both chambers to override the veto.
Doesn't this give the President power to do anything they wish, as long as they have support from only 1/6 of congress (1/3 of one chamber)?
(Actually it only requires 6.4%, by total number of representatives, since Senate is smaller than House.)
united-states veto checks-and-balances state-of-emergency
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
add a comment |
This seems like a major bug in checks and balances, since it requires 2/3 majority in both chambers to override the veto.
Doesn't this give the President power to do anything they wish, as long as they have support from only 1/6 of congress (1/3 of one chamber)?
(Actually it only requires 6.4%, by total number of representatives, since Senate is smaller than House.)
united-states veto checks-and-balances state-of-emergency
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
add a comment |
This seems like a major bug in checks and balances, since it requires 2/3 majority in both chambers to override the veto.
Doesn't this give the President power to do anything they wish, as long as they have support from only 1/6 of congress (1/3 of one chamber)?
(Actually it only requires 6.4%, by total number of representatives, since Senate is smaller than House.)
united-states veto checks-and-balances state-of-emergency
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
This seems like a major bug in checks and balances, since it requires 2/3 majority in both chambers to override the veto.
Doesn't this give the President power to do anything they wish, as long as they have support from only 1/6 of congress (1/3 of one chamber)?
(Actually it only requires 6.4%, by total number of representatives, since Senate is smaller than House.)
united-states veto checks-and-balances state-of-emergency
united-states veto checks-and-balances state-of-emergency
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
edited 3 hours ago
endolith
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
asked 3 hours ago
endolithendolith
1,089625
1,089625
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century.
When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency.
However, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress couldn't pass laws which gave Congress a "legislative veto" over the President's actions. Thus, any law which included such a provision (like the NEA) lost it.
Without a specific provision in the NEA to create a special type of resolution that didn't need Presidential approval (which was now unconstitutional), it was changed in 1985 to the default "joint resolution" of Congress, which is a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the President, but which doesn't change the law (unlike a bill). This, in turn, means the President can veto it normally, which Congress can then override normally (if it has enough votes).
And yes, to change the law to remove the President's power also requires enough votes to override the veto. It's much easier for Congress to give away power than to reclaim it.
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
add a comment |
The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution.
The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous excesses, but it establishes a path through the delegated authorities Congress has released.
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39470%2fwhy-is-the-president-allowed-to-veto-a-cancellation-of-emergency-powers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century.
When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency.
However, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress couldn't pass laws which gave Congress a "legislative veto" over the President's actions. Thus, any law which included such a provision (like the NEA) lost it.
Without a specific provision in the NEA to create a special type of resolution that didn't need Presidential approval (which was now unconstitutional), it was changed in 1985 to the default "joint resolution" of Congress, which is a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the President, but which doesn't change the law (unlike a bill). This, in turn, means the President can veto it normally, which Congress can then override normally (if it has enough votes).
And yes, to change the law to remove the President's power also requires enough votes to override the veto. It's much easier for Congress to give away power than to reclaim it.
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
add a comment |
It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century.
When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency.
However, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress couldn't pass laws which gave Congress a "legislative veto" over the President's actions. Thus, any law which included such a provision (like the NEA) lost it.
Without a specific provision in the NEA to create a special type of resolution that didn't need Presidential approval (which was now unconstitutional), it was changed in 1985 to the default "joint resolution" of Congress, which is a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the President, but which doesn't change the law (unlike a bill). This, in turn, means the President can veto it normally, which Congress can then override normally (if it has enough votes).
And yes, to change the law to remove the President's power also requires enough votes to override the veto. It's much easier for Congress to give away power than to reclaim it.
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
add a comment |
It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century.
When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency.
However, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress couldn't pass laws which gave Congress a "legislative veto" over the President's actions. Thus, any law which included such a provision (like the NEA) lost it.
Without a specific provision in the NEA to create a special type of resolution that didn't need Presidential approval (which was now unconstitutional), it was changed in 1985 to the default "joint resolution" of Congress, which is a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the President, but which doesn't change the law (unlike a bill). This, in turn, means the President can veto it normally, which Congress can then override normally (if it has enough votes).
And yes, to change the law to remove the President's power also requires enough votes to override the veto. It's much easier for Congress to give away power than to reclaim it.
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century.
When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency.
However, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress couldn't pass laws which gave Congress a "legislative veto" over the President's actions. Thus, any law which included such a provision (like the NEA) lost it.
Without a specific provision in the NEA to create a special type of resolution that didn't need Presidential approval (which was now unconstitutional), it was changed in 1985 to the default "joint resolution" of Congress, which is a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the President, but which doesn't change the law (unlike a bill). This, in turn, means the President can veto it normally, which Congress can then override normally (if it has enough votes).
And yes, to change the law to remove the President's power also requires enough votes to override the veto. It's much easier for Congress to give away power than to reclaim it.
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
answered 3 hours ago
BobsonBobson
14.2k13375
14.2k13375
add a comment |
add a comment |
The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution.
The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous excesses, but it establishes a path through the delegated authorities Congress has released.
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
add a comment |
The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution.
The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous excesses, but it establishes a path through the delegated authorities Congress has released.
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
add a comment |
The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution.
The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous excesses, but it establishes a path through the delegated authorities Congress has released.
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution.
The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous excesses, but it establishes a path through the delegated authorities Congress has released.
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
answered 3 hours ago
Drunk CynicDrunk Cynic
8,06232856
8,06232856
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39470%2fwhy-is-the-president-allowed-to-veto-a-cancellation-of-emergency-powers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
