The President of the United States holds ultimate authority over any piece of legislation. This right is given by the U.S. Constitution through the power of the Presidential veto. The Constitution states that after a bill is passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is to be given to the President for what is essentially the final OK. If the President approves of the bill and its contents, he is to sign the bill within ten days, thus passing it as a law. If he does not sign the bill within ten days it is considered approved and the bill is passed (the exception to this being the pocket veto which will be discussed below). Should the President disagree with the bill, he has the power to stop it by using either a veto or a pocket veto. If the President uses a veto, he is directly shutting down the bill, leaving it up to a two-thirds vote from both Houses to override this decision. Once vetoed the bill is sent back to the House it was born in with an explanation from The President on why it was vetoed and the voting begins. A pocket veto is only used when Congress is adjourned, the President simply does nothing, ten days go by and because Congress is not in session the bill is automatically vetoed without an override vote by the Houses. There could be many reasons for a President vetoing a bill, the most obvious being he disagrees with the proposed legislation or deems it as un-Constitutional. If this is the case a direct veto would most likely be used in order to make a stand. A pocket veto is a way for The President to shut down a bill without directly opposing it. It is a way for the President to refuse a bill without claiming the responsibility of stopping it, without ruffling any feathers. After all... ... middle of paper ... ...e passed ten days before Congress adjournes? The pocket veto is a small dark mark on an otherwise extremely effective system and it needs to no longer be an option. If the President wishes to shut down a bill, a re-vote in the House it began should be required. The pocket veto gives too much power to the Executive Branch, even if it is not often an option. In researching this bill and the veto process, I am proud of our government in general, though I am also fearful of its power. As mentioned before, its all in the headlines. This paper has spiked my interest in what is going on with the Afordable Healthcare Act. I am very curious to push my way through the screaming mobs on either side of the isle and actually figure out if it is Constitutional. I wonder if any President before Roosevelt would have let it pass. I at least know where President Pierce would stand.
The case of Clinton v. City of New York brought about some constitutional issues like whether or not the president should be able to have the kind of power that he does. The Snake River Farmers’ believe that President Clinton, actually any president shouldn’t be allowed the power to delete a portion of any bill. I believe that it is okay for the President to have some sort of power. The question has been brought ...
The Constitution of the United States sets out the procedure of a bill becoming a law in Article 1, Section 7. Scholars have interpreted the Constitution to read that a president can only sign or veto a bill, but the section that many other scholars have looked over that would allow for the line-item veto is that, “if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to r...
... This precedent allows future presidents to take actions strictly forbidden by the executive branch in times of national emergency without congressional approval. The most important expansion of the power of the presidency happened during the Jackson administration. When Jackson used the veto power of the president to influence legislation as a matter of policy and not constitutionality, he arguably altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
Congress and The Presidency Congress as a whole makes laws. When Bills are addressed they must meet the approval of both the House and the Senate in order to become a Law, and then the President can always veto it. Congress also deals with matters of public concern be it something that needs to be investigated or something that needs to be put before the public to raise awareness. Congress is made up of two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. Each is granted different powers and responsibilities.
In order to run more efficiently, there are certain responsibilities that Congress has given to the President over time. But that doesn’t mean Congress is losing any power or authority. It just means that they are giving up a responsibility that they don’t need. One of these responsibilities that were given to the President is the raising and lowering of tariffs. When it came to this issue, Congress can’t act decisively on its own. So even though Congress appropriates funds, they gave the President this fiscal responsibility. Again I want to stress that they didn’t lose any authority or power because of this. All they lost was a responsibility that they no longer have to worry about as it’s the President’s responsibility now. Still, the president has no authority or power regarding this issue. However, when he was given this fiscal responsibility, Congress also gave him staff assistance in the form of the Bureau of the Budget. This department helps the President make up the budget he wants to propose.
From the inception of the Constitution, there has always been a power struggle between the President and Congress. In the beginning, Madison and the Jeffersonians were placed in a gridlock with Hamilton and his school of political philosophy. Andrew Jackson fought to extend the powers of the President, then Congress spent 50 years fighting to repeal the powers of the Executive. Abraham Lincoln refined Jacksonian presidential politics, then Congress impeached his successor, Andrew Johnson, for fear of another quasi -- tyrannical President. Even today, a Congress, whose majority is of the same party as the President, fights 24 hours a day to check the power of President George W. Bush. But why, and how? Inherent Power Struggles Within the Constitution: Article I, Section I -- "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" VS. Article II, Section I -- "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" Article II, Section II -- "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" - The Founders' ambiguous and contradicting language sets the stage for a power struggle between the Executive and the Legislative branches - Being that the Founders were political masterminds, they realized that unique circumstances would demand some deviations from the restraints that the Constitution places on both the Executive and the Legislature - Founders anticipated that during times of crisis', the nation would need ...
For a bill to become law, it must pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate in identical form. Filibusters occur in the Senate but not in the House because the Senate allows unlimited debate on its measures, while the House only allows five minutes. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate allows a minority of forty-one senators the ability to prevent the Senate from debating or voting on bills, resolutions, or presidential nominations by filibustering or acquiescing a filibuster. A filibuster occurs when a senator or a group of senators take advantage of the “practice of unlimited debate” and hold the floor for an unnecessary amount of time with the intention of delaying or o...
In the U.S. government, the president has several constitutional powers and roles in the lawmaking process (Bianco, Canon). One particular power called unilateral power is a term described by William G. Howell as “actions such as executive orders to make policy independent of Congress” (Howell, 241). Historically, the presidents of the United States have used such power to make changes to policies without the approval or influence of Congress. For instance, President Roosevelt used the unilateral power to “issue dozens of executive orders that nationalized aviation plants, shipbuilding companies, thousands of coal companies and a shell plant- all clear violations of the Fifth Amendment’s “taking” clause” (Howell,
A dominant view among many Americans align with Richard Neustadt’s essay on presidential power, in which he defines presidency with a mere definition similar to that of clerkship. The framers of the constitution carefully divided the power, decentralized it specifically in a way that it limits each branch to act unilaterally and forces deliberation and compromising. They believe it is often the case that as a result of checks and balance system and the opposition from the public, presidents generally fail in their efforts to move the public and therefore they don’t have the kind of leverage that they want in moving the Congress.
Depending on the chamber of Congress where the bill exists, the procedures for floor action differ. I...
With congress passing ObamaCare last year we are taking baby steps towards a health system overhaul we so desperately need. The skeptics, though, still argue against it, citing the costs as too much or that it’s un-american. Health care is a basic need for everyone, and as such should be right protected and provided for by the government. There are great, economic, moral, and social benefits to be reaped, and so it is important for our government to continue down this path its started and also important for Americans to provide our full support. There is much to overcome to completely reverse the direction of the health system, and I’m sure it will take many years for the results to pay off, but I’m glad we’ve at least provided the groundwork for future generations to build
...uing Executive Orders that are backed by the force of said laws. The President still supervises the implementation of laws by directing administrative agencies, such as the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense. The President’s responsibilities have remained the same since 1788, yet they have been added to with every newly elected President.
...then reconsidered and if two-thirds of those members present approve the vetoed bill, it becomes law despite the veto. If the President decides to ignore and take no action on the bill, it is given ten days excluding Sundays. It becomes a law even with out the chief executive’s signature. When the bill becomes a law, it is given a number that indicates which congress passed it. A strength of this legislative process is that here all of the makings of a law come together in action to finalize and complete the bill. To ensample, the House and Senate make comprimises and then the President gives his contribution. In conclusion, the bill has been through all of the revising and has passed through the President and is now a law.
Picking and choosing battles to fight is very important for the executive if they hope to cause real change for the people. In Rudalevige’s book, he gives advice to future presidents and said, “Too few priorities may be better than too many, usually, presidents should choice the targeted “refile” approach over firing a less focused “shotgun” blast legislative proposals at congress” (Rudalevige, 437 – 438). A ‘refile approach’ offers more emphasis on certain subjects of importance and can sometimes lead to more congressional approval. The executive branch must continuously evaluate which issues will most likely to get greenlighted fight harder for and note policies to give up on temporarily. Today, we have learned there are more powers to the executive branch than previously known to battle against congressional
...ng to our benefit. Congress has several important and express responsibilities and while at times they may attempt to flex those powers in ways we don't agree with, or take the necessary and proper clause a little too liberally, we the people are always free to challenge them and utilize the powers given to us as free citizens to help decide how far those powers can really extend.