3

(I generally understand why this isn't the case; however, I ask this question on behalf of others who might not. Thus I write here pretending to have less knowledge than I actually have.)

I am not American. As I understand it, the President has veto power and can overturn any federal law after it has passed Congress. The recent travel ban tells me that the President can use Executive Orders to make anything he wants law without going through Congress.

If the President has both full negative and full positive power over the law, does that not make him a monarch?

7

The President's travel ban executive order, at the time of this answer, has been put on hold by the judicial branch while it decides whether the order was actually legal. It could very well decide that the order was an overreach of presidential authority and overturn it. Even the president must abide by the limits that the Constitution and federal laws grant to the office, unlike a monarch, and part of the judiciary's job is to see that s/he does.

As for the veto, yes, the president can veto any bill passed by both houses of the legislature before it has become law (the president cannot veto an existing law), but the veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority vote by both the House and Senate. While it is rare, this prevents a president from blocking a particularly popular bill (or removes the power from a particularly unpopular president). It is also important to point out that a veto can only reject the full bill as it is written and passed by the legislature, even if there are parts of it the president likes.

There was a short-lived law passed in 1996 that granted President Clinton the power to "line-item veto", or only reject certain parts of bill he didn't want to pass (interestingly it was introduced by members of the rival party). The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that this granted the president unconstitutional powers, and the law was overturned.

The president and executive branch have broad powers to decide how the laws of the country are enforced. This is what executive orders do. But they do not have the power to create laws of their own. Only the legislature can do that. Also, the powers of the president are limited by the judicial branch's interpretation of the powers granted to it by the Constitution and federal law and can be held in check by court order.

Because of this, the president is not a monarch.

4

the President has veto power and can overturn any federal law after it has passed Congress.

A president can't overturn a law once it has passed. Once a bill has passed into law, it's law. The president does have the ability to veto a bill before it is considered passed. Congress may then override the veto with a two thirds supermajority of each chamber. This is difficult but not impossible.

A president has no ability to veto a constitutional amendment, which many would consider included in "any federal law".

The recent travel ban tells me that the President can use Executive Orders to make anything he wants law without going through Congress.

While presidents have a lot of power with regards to executive orders, they can't actually make anything they want law.

The travel pause is based on a section of 1952 legislation allowing the president to control immigration for national security.

Other executive orders use presidential discretion in regulation, etc.

And of course, some executive orders are unlawful and overturned via judicial review.

If the President has both full negative and full positive power over the law, does that not make him a monarch?

Even if we allowed that presidents had full negative and positive power over the law, I still don't believe that would make them monarchs. Monarchs are typically lifetime positions that are either inherited or selected from an inherited group.

Monarchs don't necessarily have full power over the law. Many are essentially figureheads. For example, technically speaking the Queen of England has to sign legislation for it to become law. But as a practical matter, she never fails to do so. So monarchs may have less power than a president.

The president is certainly the head of state in the United States. But since it is an elected, temporary position open to any natural born citizen of sufficient age, I do not believe that it is the equivalent of a monarchy. And it wouldn't be even if the presidency was otherwise more powerful. Perhaps it would be a dictatorship or an autocracy, but not a monarchy. Of course, from dictatorship to monarchy is not a big leap.

At minimum I would say that a monarch has to be limited to some group via heredity. Almost all have lifetime terms, and most are selected purely by primogeniture. But there are exceptions to those rules.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.