Why can SCOTUS invalidate a portion of a law, but a President can't veto a portion of a law?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why can SCOTUS invalidate a portion of a law, but a President can't veto a portion of a law?

Posted: 7/23/2010 2:52:43 PM EDT

SCOTUS ruled the line-item veto is unconstitutional years ago, and yet courts routinely strike down portions of laws all the time.

Basically Presidents can't veto portions of laws line-by-line, but the courts CAN invalidate portions of laws line-by-line?
So is the Judiciary a "more-equal" co-equal branch of gov't than the Executive?

Posted: 7/23/2010 2:56:52 PM EDT

[#1]

The president cannot veto laws, he can veto bills.

Posted: 7/23/2010 2:58:19 PM EDT

[#2]

separation of powers.

only Congress can write laws.

Quoted:

SCOTUS ruled the line-item veto is unconstitutional years ago, and yet courts routinely strike down portions of laws all the time.

Basically Presidents can't veto portions of laws line-by-line, but the courts CAN invalidate portions of laws line-by-line?

So is the Judiciary a "more-equal" co-equal branch of gov't than the Executive?

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:01:55 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
The president cannot veto laws, he can veto bills.

And any president that wants to veto specific lines of a bill should feel free to send the bill back with those suggestions.

Line item veto amounts to the President writing law.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:03:07 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

separation of powers.

only Congress can write laws.

Quoted:

SCOTUS ruled the line-item veto is unconstitutional years ago, and yet courts routinely strike down portions of laws all the time.

Basically Presidents can't veto portions of laws line-by-line, but the courts CAN invalidate portions of laws line-by-line?

So is the Judiciary a "more-equal" co-equal branch of gov't than the Executive?

Only the Judiciary can invalidate laws as being unconstitutional.

And only the President can veto laws.

Yet the courts can go line-by-line and invalidate PORTIONS of laws which is exactly the same effect on the law Congress wrote as a President using line-item veto.

The effect is the same.

So if you believe that line-item veto is "writing" law, then so is line-item invalidating.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:04:01 PM EDT

[#5]

The President's veto power is defined by the explicit terms of the Constitution.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: 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 reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds
of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together
with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall
become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
determined by Yeas and Nays,
and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be
entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not
be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after
it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like
Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The language only grants the power to sign or veto the bill, not to make changes. The Supreme Court's power to overrule legislation comes from its obligation to uphold the Constitution. It only invalidates acts or portions of acts of Congress which conflict with the Constitution.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:06:47 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
The President's veto power is defined by the explicit terms of the Constitution.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: 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 reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The language only grants the power to sign or veto the bill, not to make changes. The Supreme Court's power to overrule legislation comes from its obligation to uphold the Constitution. It only invalidates acts or portions of acts of Congress which conflict with the Constitution.

Because the Court doesn't want to step on the toes of the legislature unless it has to. Therefore, if the Court can excise only the offending part of the legislation and keep the rest, that is the best answer in terms of separation of powers.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:07:34 PM EDT

[#7]

There is more of them, they would win in a fight....

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:09:00 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

The President's veto power is defined by the explicit terms of the Constitution.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: 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 reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The language only grants the power to sign or veto the bill, not to make changes. The Supreme Court's power to overrule legislation comes from its obligation to uphold the Constitution. It only invalidates acts or portions of acts of Congress which conflict with the Constitution.

Where does it grant the courts power to edit "parts" of a law as opposed to judging the "law" as a whole?

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:11:21 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The President's veto power is defined by the explicit terms of the Constitution.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: 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 reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The language only grants the power to sign or veto the bill, not to make changes. The Supreme Court's power to overrule legislation comes from its obligation to uphold the Constitution. It only invalidates acts or portions of acts of Congress which conflict with the Constitution.

Because the Court doesn't want to step on the toes of the legislature unless it has to. Therefore, if the Court can excise only the offending part of the legislation and keep the rest, that is the best answer in terms of separation of powers.

I would characterize it a little differently. The Court cannot "strike down" a law per se, though that is how it is referred to colloquially. What is actually happening is that the Court says "the act of Congress commands me to do one thing, and the U.S. Constitution commands me to do another, so I must follow the Constitution as the higher law." If another part of the act of Congress does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution then the Court must follow it.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:11:34 PM EDT

[#10]

And, SCOTUS is NOT the final authority...

Congress, as representatives of the people, can amend the Constitution, reformulate and/or fund, defund Federal courts (including SCOTUS), and dismiss a SCOTUS Judge (or Judges) through impeachment.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:12:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The President's veto power is defined by the explicit terms of the Constitution.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: 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 reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The language only grants the power to sign or veto the bill, not to make changes. The Supreme Court's power to overrule legislation comes from its obligation to uphold the Constitution. It only invalidates acts or portions of acts of Congress which conflict with the Constitution.

Because the Court doesn't want to step on the toes of the legislature unless it has to. Therefore, if the Court can excise only the offending part of the legislation and keep the rest, that is the best answer in terms of separation of powers.

I would characterize it a little differently. The Court cannot "strike down" a law per se, though that is how it is referred to colloquially. What is actually happening is that the Court says "the act of Congress commands me to do one thing, and the U.S. Constitution commands me to do another, so I must follow the Constitution as the higher law." If another part of the act of Congress does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution then the Court must follow it.

If you're going to try to be a smartypants about it, you should use more $5 words.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:14:44 PM EDT

[#12]

That's all part of the genius behind the separation of powers and checks and balances our founders implemented in our federal system.

It's really very clear, the Executive branch enforces laws, it does not make them, only Congress has that power. Sure the Supreme Court will strike down parts of laws that are unconstitutional, that's their job. The. S.C. however, has no say in the crafting of or the signing into law.

No president should have the power of the line item veto, especially the ass wipe we have in office currently.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:15:58 PM EDT

[#13]

I think an example would help. Say Congress passes the Helping Veterans Act which does two things: (1) it provides increased funding for veterans' hospitals; and (2) it criminalizes anyone who falsely claims military service.

1. President. According to the Presentment Clause, when presented with the Bill the President can either sign it, or veto it.

2. Supreme Court. Part 2 of the Bill conflicts with the First Amendment, and the Court will follow the First Amendment rather than part 2. Part 1, however, does not conflict with the Constitution and thus the Supreme Court has no basis to refuse to follow it.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:17:33 PM EDT

[#14]

worth noting that the courts can't really do any thing in a pro-active manner......a case must be brought by another party

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:18:33 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

If you're going to try to be a smartypants about it, you should use more $5 words.

Don't you have some bar studying to do?

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:19:16 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

I think an example would help. Say Congress passes the Helping Veterans Act which does two things: (1) it provides increased funding for veterans' hospitals; and (2) it criminalizes anyone who falsely claims military service.

1. President. According to the Presentment Clause, when presented with the Bill the President can either sign it, or veto it.

2. Supreme Court. Part 2 of the Bill conflicts with the First Amendment, and the Court will follow the First Amendment rather than part 2. Part 1, however, does not conflict with the Constitution and thus the Supreme Court has no basis to refuse to follow it.

So the Supreme Court judges the law as being unconstitutional and invalidates it, period.

Where do they get the authority to split the law and invalidate only portions of it - effectively editing/re-writing it?
Maybe this is a misunderstanding of the actual legal mechanics of invalidating a law on my part but it just seems like the court can essentially edit law to become something that Congress never wrote, as opposed to invalidating the law as a whole.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:23:40 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Where do they get the authority to split the law and invalidate only portions of it - effectively editing/re-writing it?

Maybe this is a misunderstanding of the actual legal mechanics of invalidating a law on my part but it just seems like the court can essentially edit law to become something that Congress never wrote, as opposed to invalidating the law as a whole.

It's a structural inference. Congress' laws are presumptively valid, and the Court doesn't want to strike them down if they don't have to. If the Court can strike a portion, they will. Otherwise, the court would be interfering unnecessarily with Congress' side of things.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:25:19 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think an example would help. Say Congress passes the Helping Veterans Act which does two things: (1) it provides increased funding for veterans' hospitals; and (2) it criminalizes anyone who falsely claims military service.

1. President. According to the Presentment Clause, when presented with the Bill the President can either sign it, or veto it.

2. Supreme Court. Part 2 of the Bill conflicts with the First Amendment, and the Court will follow the First Amendment rather than part 2. Part 1, however, does not conflict with the Constitution and thus the Supreme Court has no basis to refuse to follow it.

So the Supreme Court judges the law as being unconstitutional and invalidates it, period.

Where do they get the authority to split the law and invalidate only portions of it - effectively editing/re-writing it?
Maybe this is a misunderstanding of the actual legal mechanics of invalidating a law on my part but it just seems like the court can essentially edit law to become something that Congress never wrote, as opposed to invalidating the law as a whole.

Think of it like refusing an illegal order in war. Say your captain orders you to do the following:

(1) march up the next hill;

(2) dig in;

(3) repel attacking enemy soldiers;

(4) try to take enemy prisoners; and

(5) torture enemy soldiers for information.

Only number 5 is an unlawful order, because it conflicts with standing orders regarding the rules of war. The soldier should refuse to do number 5. That, however, does not grant him the right to refuse to do numbers 1-4 simply because they were on the same sheet of paper. That's how the Court views Acts of Congress. A series of orders, which it will follow unless they conflict with higher orders (i.e., the Constitution). The Court will only strike down an entire law if it is so entwined that it cannot separate the parts.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:32:52 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

SCOTUS ruled the line-item veto is unconstitutional years ago, and yet courts routinely strike down portions of laws all the time.

Basically Presidents can't veto portions of laws line-by-line, but the courts CAN invalidate portions of laws line-by-line?

So is the Judiciary a "more-equal" co-equal branch of gov't than the Executive?

The Supreme Court is "more equal" only because of the power they arrogated to themselves in Marbury vs. Madison. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything saying that the Court is the Constitution's supreme arbiter. Furthermore, the Congress can limit the appellate power of the Court by legislation any time it wishes.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:36:31 PM EDT

[#20]

The Supreme Court only invalidates a part of a law when it is incompatible with the Constitution. A President with line-item veto power would be able to invalidate parts of laws just because they felt like it, with no justification required.

The main purpose of the Congress is to create the laws. The Supreme Court is there to make sure those laws are Constitutional. The Executive's purpose is to execute the laws passed by Congress. Presidential line-item veto is straying pretty far into the law-writing role that really is the domain of Congress.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:41:43 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

That's how the Court views Acts of Congress. A series of orders, which it will follow unless they conflict with higher orders (i.e., the Constitution). The Court will only strike down an entire law if it is so entwined that it cannot separate the parts.

Yes I see, but where does the Constitution grant the Court power to break apart a whole law into a series of orders and then invalidate only portions of it - as opposed to judging "the law" as a whole as being Constitutional or not?

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:44:43 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Where do they get the authority to split the law and invalidate only portions of it - effectively editing/re-writing it?
Maybe this is a misunderstanding of the actual legal mechanics of invalidating a law on my part but it just seems like the court can essentially edit law to become something that Congress never wrote, as opposed to invalidating the law as a whole.

It's a structural inference. Congress' laws are presumptively valid, and the Court doesn't want to strike them down if they don't have to. If the Court can strike a portion, they will. Otherwise, the court would be interfering unnecessarily with Congress' side of things.

Where in the Constitution does it grant them the power to strike "a portion" of law rather than "the law"?
Maybe the legal-eagles here can point to the first time in our history when a PORTION of a law was struck down by the Court, as opposed to a whole law?

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:47:05 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Where do they get the authority to split the law and invalidate only portions of it - effectively editing/re-writing it?

Maybe this is a misunderstanding of the actual legal mechanics of invalidating a law on my part but it just seems like the court can essentially edit law to become something that Congress never wrote, as opposed to invalidating the law as a whole.

It's a structural inference. Congress' laws are presumptively valid, and the Court doesn't want to strike them down if they don't have to. If the Court can strike a portion, they will. Otherwise, the court would be interfering unnecessarily with Congress' side of things.

Where in the Constitution does it grant them the power to strike "a portion" of law rather than "the law"?

The Constitution does not give the Court the explicit power to strike a law or a portion thereof.

Maybe the legal-eagles here can point to the first time in our history when a PORTION of a law was struck down by the Court, as opposed to a whole law?

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:52:50 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's how the Court views Acts of Congress. A series of orders, which it will follow unless they conflict with higher orders (i.e., the Constitution). The Court will only strike down an entire law if it is so entwined that it cannot separate the parts.

Yes I see, but where does the Constitution grant the Court power to break apart a whole law into a series of orders and then invalidate only portions of it - as opposed to judging "the law" as a whole as being Constitutional or not?

It has to do with the source of authority. The only authority the Court has not to follow an Act of Congress is that it conflicts with a provision of the Constitution. The Court interprets this power narrowly and only refuses to follow an act insofar as it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The other thing to consider is that once an act is passed into law, it is no longer really a wholistic thing. Rather, Acts of Congress typically modify different provisions of the United States Code - and it is very common for Act to modify many different chapters of the U.S. Code. So the Court looks at a law in terms of whether a specific provision of the U.S. Code is unconstitutional, rather than how the Bill looked coming through Congress.

Posted: 7/23/2010 3:56:37 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's how the Court views Acts of Congress. A series of orders, which it will follow unless they conflict with higher orders (i.e., the Constitution). The Court will only strike down an entire law if it is so entwined that it cannot separate the parts.

Yes I see, but where does the Constitution grant the Court power to break apart a whole law into a series of orders and then invalidate only portions of it - as opposed to judging "the law" as a whole as being Constitutional or not?

It has to do with the source of authority. The only authority the Court has not to follow an Act of Congress is that it conflicts with a provision of the Constitution. The Court interprets this power narrowly and only refuses to follow an act insofar as it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The other thing to consider is that once an act is passed into law, it is no longer really a wholistic thing. Rather, Acts of Congress typically modify different provisions of the United States Code - and it is very common for Act to modify many different chapters of the U.S. Code. So the Court looks at a law in terms of whether a specific provision of the U.S. Code is unconstitutional, rather than how the Bill looked coming through Congress.

Okay, that makes sense.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why can SCOTUS invalidate a portion of a law, but a President can't veto a portion of a law?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us