The President has a constitutional veto of legislation but was not given a line item veto and, by Supreme Court ruling, cannot be given one by Congress.
The Supreme Court was not given a veto by the constitution but, by Supreme Court ruling, does have a veto and a line item veto.
Medal of Honor Tuesday: Army Sgt. Joe Hayashi
11 hours ago
Hmmm! Is it fair to equate the SC's power to kill a bill to the President's power to kill a bill? VETO gives the Executive the power to reject a bill FOR ANY REASON and send it back to Congress where it can, potentially, be passed anyway. The SC can reject a bill ONLY if they determine it is unlawful, and Congress cannot pass the bill (in its same form) over the SC ruling. The bill may end up in the dumpster either way, but I would not characterize the SCs power as veto power.
ReplyDeleteYou are right and I used to take a lot of comfort from that.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand the SC is the agency that decides on what BASIS the bill is determined to be unlawful. They can and have based decisions on the "penumbra emanating from the 4th amendment". Combining that with the fact that it is believed by many that a judge cannot be removed for ANY decision no matter how bad, it gets problematical whether there is any difference.
Hypothetically, and I hope the universe does not split apart. If Congress passed a constitutional admendment allowing a line item veto could the SC declare it unconstitutional? i.e. can the SC rule on the constitutionality of a change to the constitution?
ReplyDeleteThe amendment would also require 3/4 of the states. Then no they could not . However, in at least one state (LA) it has happened on the state level.
ReplyDelete