• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the President veto or repeal a law?

Can the President veto or repeal a law?

  • Yes, he can!

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • No, only Congress has these enumerated powers

    Votes: 7 53.8%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Not playing these games with you. I'm not interested.

There are no "games." You said what you said. Now you say you didn't, even though it's quoted back plain as day to you. If there are "games," you're the one playing them.

I have to say, this makes you look exceedingly childish. If that's the best you've got, then yes, there's little point.
 
There are no "games." You said what you said. Now you say you didn't, even though it's quoted back plain as day to you. If there are "games," you're the one playing them.

I have to say, this makes you look exceedingly childish. If that's the best you've got, then yes, there's little point.

You misunderstood my words. If you won't give me the benefit of the doubt to own my own words even after I try to explain them to you, I have no reason to listen to your words. Childish is when you don't give people that respect.
 
You misunderstood my words. If you won't give me the benefit of the doubt to own my own words even after I try to explain them to you, I have no reason to listen to your words. Childish is when you don't give people that respect.

No. If you weren't saying what you meant, then you simply used the wrong words. I didn't misunderstand them. You pooched it. If you want to be understood, get it right.

You didn't come back with "sorry, what I meant was" -- you simply denied having said it, when you plainly did.

Others can decide what they think, but it absolutely appears to me that you said a bunch of things you couldn't support and when you found you couldn't, you simply pretended to have said something else. That gets no respect from me at all, nor should it.
 
No. If you weren't saying what you meant, then you simply used the wrong words. I didn't misunderstand them. You pooched it. If you want to be understood, get it right.

You didn't come back with "sorry, what I meant was" -- you simply denied having said it, when you plainly did.

Others can decide what they think, but it absolutely appears to me that you said a bunch of things you couldn't support and when you found you couldn't, you simply pretended to have said something else. That gets no respect from me at all, nor should it.

You're still doing it.
 
It seems that people here don't understand what "refusing to enforce a law" means. (Hint: it doesn't mean that the president doesn't have to do what the law requires him to do)
 
It seems that people here don't understand what "refusing to enforce a law" means. (Hint: it doesn't mean that the president doesn't have to do what the law requires him to do)

The president may refuse to do what a law requires him to do if he believes the law is unconstitutional.
 
The president may refuse to do what a law requires him to do if he believes the law is unconstitutional.

And the president can be forced to do it, if it is constitutional

(Note: And we're talking about the health care laws. There's nothing unconstitutional about that)
 
"forced" = ordered by the courts to do it

That's when you usually get a resolution, and every once in a while a constitutional crisis.
 
And when the person who actually said it corrects you, you refuse to respect that.

:roll: You didn't. You simply denied saying what you plainly said.

This is getting truly pathetic. Grow up.
 
:roll: You didn't. You simply denied saying what you plainly said.

No, I didn't.

But there is no point in arguing with you, since you lack the respect to accept my explanation of my own words. It's too bad. I don't disrespect you that way.
 
its not like obamacare is going anywhere anyways, even if they can't repeal it the courts are stuck on it.
 
its not like obamacare is going anywhere anyways, even if they can't repeal it the courts are stuck on it.

The courts are stuck on it? How do you figure?

The Supreme's have yet to have their say.
 
Because your poll is poorly worded, I decline to answer it.

1. The President cannot repeal or veto a law that is already on the books.

2. Congress cannot veto any law that is already on the books.

In respect to this issue:

The President can propose that Congress enact legislation that will remove Obamacare (or parts of it) from the books. The President can then pass or veto such legislation.

Congress can enact legislation, whether the President proposes it or not, that will remove Obamacare (or parts of it) from the books. The President can then pass or veto such legislation.

Objective Voice, try to be a bit more precise in the future, eh?

You seemed to comprehend the poll well enough to accurately conclude that "the President CANNOT repeal or veto an existing law on his own; he can only veto a bill presented to him from Congress". Thus, in order for Mitt Romeny, Newt Gingrinch, Rick Santorum or even Ron Paul to repeal ObamaCare, they must first receive a bill from Congress calling for such a repeal.

Thus, I'd say the poll is precise enough. I thank you for your reply nonetheless.
 
Illegal immigration/border control.

Obama's not enforcing federal law in CA, is that what you mean?

Neither law has been repealed at the federal Exeuctive level. Both laws are still part of U.S. Code and are still enforceable by competent legal authority at all levels of government (local, state, federal).
 
He's required to faithfully execute the laws. If he thinks it's unconsitutional, he needs to file suit.

The time for a President to declare something unconstitutional is at the point of veto.

But he can't veto an existing law! The DOMA was already the law when Obama assumed the presidency. He can't "veto" it. But he can instruct the Justice Department not to defend the law in court which is the issue at hand where this law is concerned. However, this gets off topic.

Fact is, President Obama cannot veto DOMA anymore than he could veto any other existing law. If that were the case, he'd have repealled the Bush tax cuts by now. If a sitting President had that kind of power, why hasn't Obama exercised this authority by now?

Answer: HE CAN'T!!! Which brings the issue back around to the GOP candidates blowing smoke over repealing ObamaCare the first day they're in office - NO CAN DO!!!
 
Again, you don't appear to appreciate the can of worms you open with this. The Constitution is silent on who determines constitutionality, but saying the President can -- let alone must -- refuse to enforce anything he says is unconstitutional is a recipe for willy-nilly pandemonium. No one setting up a government would ever envision that.

Also again, it's ancillary to the point of whether or not Obama has selectively enforced the law; obviously, he has.

The President CANNOT arbitrarily determine NOT to follow a law. He's bound by the law same as every other American citizen (or legal resident, as the law applies). I think folks are confusing Signing Statements with Executive Orders.

A Signing Statement is usually what the President attaches to a law even if he disagrees with part(s) of it. Typically, the Presidnet will sign a bill but attach a "statement" to it outlining his grievences to certain provisions, but will still sign the law because the essence of the law is still constitutional.

An Executive Order is generally used by the President to inform Congress (and the general public) of certain provisions of a law he/she wishes to act on yet remain within the limits of the law. For example, President Obama moved forward with the Income-Based and Income-Contingency provisions of the Education Reconsiliation Act which is part of ObamaCare that allows college students to repay their student loans based on their modified adjusted gross income. This provision wasn't suppose to go into effect until around 2014, but he moved the time table up by issuing an Executive Order. This doesn't violate the law; just accelerates a provision of the law.
 
Again, you don't appear to appreciate the can of worms you open with this. The Constitution is silent on who determines constitutionality, but saying the President can -- let alone must -- refuse to enforce anything he says is unconstitutional is a recipe for willy-nilly pandemonium. No one setting up a government would ever envision that.

Again, from the Marbury decision:

"...the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Sounds like Marshall (who was a member of the Virginia convention that considered ratification of the U.S. Constitution) believed that all government officers must follow the Constitution first, even if it means rejecting laws they believe violate it.
 
"Approving Legislation

Although it is the responsibility of Congress to introduce and pass legislation, it is the president's duty to either approve those bills or reject them. Once the president signs a bill into law, it goes immediately into effect unless there is another effective date noted. Only the Supreme Court may remove the law, by declaring it unconstitutional.

The president may also issue a signing statement at the time he signs a bill. The presidential signing statement may simply explain the purpose of the bill, instruct the responsible executive branch agencies on how the law should be administered or express the president's opinion of the law's constitutionality.

Vetoing Legislation

The president may also veto a specific bill, which Congress can override with a two-thirds majority of the number of members present in both the Senate and the House when the override vote is taken. Whichever chamber of Congress originated the bill may also rewrite the legislation after the veto and send it back to the president for approval.

The president has a third option, which is to do nothing. In this case, two things can happen. If Congress is in session at any point within a period of 10 business days after the president receives the bill, it automatically becomes law. If Congress does not convene within 10 days, the bill dies and Congress cannot override it. This is known as a pocket veto.

No Congressional Approval Needed

There are two ways that presidents can enact initiatives without congressional approval. Presidents may issue a proclamation, often ceremonial in nature, such as naming a day in honor of someone or something that has contributed to American society. A president may also issue an executive order, which has the full effect of law and is directed to federal agencies that are charged with carrying out the order. Examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive order for the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces and Dwight Eisenhower's order to integrate the nation's schools.

Congress cannot directly vote to override an executive order in the way they can a veto. Instead, Congress must pass a bill canceling or changing the order in a manner they see fit. The president will typically veto that bill, and then Congress can try to override the veto of that second bill. The Supreme Court can also declare an executive order to be unconstitutional. Congressional cancellation of an order is extremely rare."

Legislative Powers of the President of the United States
 
So to bring this full circle, the executive branch can ignore enforcement of laws based on its opinion.

In a nutshell, yes. He [President] can't repeal a law, but he can issue an EO stating why he won't enforce certain provisions of a law OR he can accelerate the execution of a provision of a law in advance of the entire law taking affect. But repeal...no.
 
The President can only veto a bill that has been passed, but has not yet been signed into law. An active law has to be repealed in Congress and then the repeal bill has to be signed by the President.
 
Back
Top Bottom