• 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 .
Only the courts determine constitutionality.

You really need to brush up on your civics.

Absolutely false.

The power claimed by the courts to interpret the Constitution is based on its oath to uphold it. The President takes that same oath. The President MUST interpret the Constitution to do his job.

To say that the President must follow a law he finds unconstitutional is absurd on its face. He must refuse or he is violating his oath.

The reason the courts are seen as interpreters is simply because they often have the last word, because they settle disputes over constitutionality. But a president most certainly does not have to bow to the will of Congress on its interpretation of the Constitution.

And I'm really really confident about my civics too. Really really.
 
I ask this question because Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential hopefuls have been going around on the campaign trail declaring that they will repeal "ObamaCare" the first day they're in office. But is a repeal or veto of a setting law a presidential enumerated power under the Constitution?

I think most people would agree, the answer is "NO". Still, I'd like to hear what the readers think.

They can't just repeal it or veto it after its gone into effect.

What they can do is however is make it clear to the congress they'll sign something repealing it, and so if the Republicans win a majority in both houses they could push something through and have it on the President's desk to sign and repeal.

I guess theoritically they could also take actions similar to how certain immigration law simply isn't enforced or given attention, or how some drug laws aren't or weren't paid attention to on the federal level, and possibly take actions on the executive branch end of things not to enact or enforce the tennets of the bill...though I believe that's more of a grey area.

I think though its along the lines of what Newt said last night...a promise with a condition that the Republicans need to win enough seats to be able to pass the legislation in the congress to get it to the Presidents desk.
 
He's required to faithfully execute the laws. If he thinks it's unconsitutional, he needs to file suit.

No, he can - he must - refuse to follow a law he thinks violates the Constitution, and then Congress can sue HIM if it wants.

The idea that the President is required to violate the Constitution just because another branch tells him to is ridiculous. He is just as much a constitutional officer as any other.
 
Of course he can.

He swore an oath to uphold the constitution. He's required not to follow laws he sees as unconstitutional.

By this reasoning, similarly, a Republican administration finding that the healthcare law is an unconstitutional law could refuse to do any sort of enforcement to states that are not complying with the measure or other sort of actions that require federal enforcement...right?
 
No, he can - he must - refuse to follow a law he thinks violates the Constitution, and then Congress can sue HIM if it wants.

The idea that the President is required to violate the Constitution just because another branch tells him to is ridiculous. He is just as much a constitutional officer as any other.

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.
 
By this reasoning, similarly, a Republican administration finding that the healthcare law is an unconstitutional law could refuse to do any sort of enforcement to states that are not complying with the measure or other sort of actions that require federal enforcement...right?

Yes.

And a member of Congress, or perhaps someone else, could sue that administration to require enforcement.
 
The Constitution is silent on who determines constitutionality,

Really?

So didn't you just say the courts have that power? Where does it come from?

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.

And yet that's how it already works. And it works pretty well.
 
Yes.

And a member of Congress, or perhaps someone else, could sue that administration to require enforcement.

Please link proof to your assertion that a member of Congress or someone else can sue the POTUS to require enforcement.
 
I ask this question because Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential hopefuls have been going around on the campaign trail declaring that they will repeal "ObamaCare" the first day they're in office. But is a repeal or veto of a setting law a presidential enumerated power under the Constitution?

I think most people would agree, the answer is "NO". Still, I'd like to hear what the readers think.

I have not seen (and could not find) where Romney or Gingrich... or anyone else for that matter said that they would unilatterally repeal Obamacare on Day 1. If you can find it I'd love to see it. What I found was this:

Gingrich on Inauguration Day: Repeal Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank - Ken Walsh's Washington (usnews.com)

What Gingrich said here was that conservatives should concentrate on the taking congressional seats away from the Democrats in November, and that the new GOP majority should draft and pass the bill prior to Inauguration Day and have it ready for him to sign just as soon as he was sworn in.

I also saw where Romney said he would issue waivers to the 50 states on the first day... again, could not find where he claimed he would unilatterally repeal it.

However, while we are talking about the Executive Branch repealing laws, how about discussion on the Executive Branch unilatterally MAKING laws in the absence of congressional approval and CHANGING laws already passed by Congress, which is almost the same thing as repeal, right?

Regulatory: President Obama shifts to unilateral executive action

President Obama on Ensuring Fair Pay for In-Home Care Workers | The White House

Just a couple of examples of how the current President has bypassed Congress to make and to change laws.
 
Please link proof to your assertion that a member of Congress or someone else can sue the POTUS to require enforcement.

Writ of mandamus.
 
Really?

So didn't you just say the courts have that power? Where does it come from?

Oddly, I did not.

And saying it's "silent" on who determines constitutionality does not imply that no one gets to.


And yet that's how it already works. And it works pretty well.

Define "works," and "pretty well."

And it's still beside the point, because it's just an excuse you chose to bring up in order to deflect from a bona-fide instance of where Obama selectively enforced the law, so it's all a red herring anyway.
 
Writ of mandamus.

Which was the issue in Marbury v. Madison - which not only established judicial review, but also, remember, ruled that the executive branch need not follow a law it also believed was unconstitutional!
 
Oddly, I did not.

And saying it's "silent" on who determines constitutionality does not imply that no one gets to.

True.

So who does?

And it's still beside the point, because it's just an excuse you chose to bring up in order to deflect from a bona-fide instance of where Obama selectively enforced the law, so it's all a red herring anyway.

Then don't discuss it.
 

From your link:

Can anyone sue the president? -- Not for what he does as chief executive. The 1982 Supreme Court decision Nixon v. Fitzgerald gave the president broad immunity against civil lawsuits for job-related actions. Here's the background: In 1968, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a civilian analyst at the Air Force, warned Congress about the mounting costs of producing the Lockheed C-5A, a transport plane. Soon after, President Nixon ordered Fitzgerald dismissed, and Fitzgerald sued. Ultimately, a 5-4 split Court found in favor of Nixon, holding that the president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." The theory goes that subjecting the president, who routinely makes decisions that alter the fortunes of millions of citizens, to such lawsuits would cripple his ability to preside effectively and distract him from the job.

I guess I should listen to my own counsel: "Anybody can sue. The question is, 'Can they win?" Thanks for the link. Lawsuit, of course, is going nowhere.
 
I guess I should listen to my own counsel: "Anybody can sue. The question is, 'Can they win?" Thanks for the link. Lawsuit, of course, is going nowhere.

Didn't say they had a case. But they have standing to sue, that's the important part. It's part of the process.
 
Which was the issue in Marbury v. Madison . . . ruled that the executive branch need not follow a law it also believed was unconstitutional!

No. It did not.

(And a writ of mandamus was not "THE" issue; it was the sought remedy.)
 
No. It did not.

Yes, it did. It upheld Madison's action.

Madison didn't follow the law and then sue to have it overturned - that would be impossible anyway, since there was no dispute for the court. He refused, and then the courts said he had the power to do so because the law was unconstitutional.

(And a writ of mandamus was not "THE" issue; it was the sought remedy.)

The appeal was about Madison's refusal to follow the writ.
 
Why are you? Other than as a deflection? It had nothing to do with the point.

Because I believe it's relevant. If you don't, just say so.
 
Yes, it did. It upheld Madison's action.

No, it didn't. The court said that the Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction over the matter and remanded the case.

That very jurisdiction, as granted by Congress in the Judiciary act of 1789, was what was declared unconstitutional.


Madison didn't follow the law and then sue to have it overturned

So what? I never said he did; that's another deflection -- and a silly one, because Madison was not President; Jefferson was.
 
Because I believe it's relevant. If you don't, just say so.

Um, I did. And it's not. It's still selective enforcement; you're just adding a proviso to give him a pass.
 
No, it didn't. The court said that the Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction over the matter and remanded the case.

That very jurisdiction, as granted by Congress in the Judiciary act of 1789, was what was declared unconstitutional.

Without getting into it, I'll just remind you that the reason the court found the power to declare a law unconstitutional was the oath the judges took to uphold the Constitution, which is the same oath the President and Congress members take.




So what? I never said he did; that's another deflection -- and a silly one, because Madison was not President; Jefferson was.[/QUOTE]
 
So what? I never said he did; that's another deflection -- and a silly one, because Madison was not President; Jefferson was.

Madison was in Jefferson's cabinet acting under his authority. And it's not a deflection, because that's how some people think the system should work, but that would make no sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom