Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
This seems like a major bug in checks and balances, since it requires 2/3 majority in both chambers to override the veto.
Doesn't this give the President power to do anything they wish, as long as they have support from only 1/6 of congress (1/3 of one chamber)?
(Actually it only requires 6.4%, by total number of representatives, since Senate is smaller than House.)
That seems like it gives even a small minority party dictatorial powers.
It is a bug in the process, but it's one that has been present (and un-addressed) for more than a quarter century.
When the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976, it originally said that an emergency would be terminated if each house of Congress voted to do so. Thus a simple majority of both houses was supposed to be able to revoke the emergency.
However, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Chadha that Congress couldn't pass laws which gave Congress a "legislative veto" over the President's actions. Thus, any law which included such a provision (like the NEA) lost it.
Without a specific provision in the NEA to create a special type of resolution that didn't need Presidential approval (which was now unconstitutional), it was changed in 1985 to the default "joint resolution" of Congress, which is a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the President, but which doesn't change the law (unlike a bill). This, in turn, means the President can veto it normally, which Congress can then override normally (if it has enough votes).
And yes, to change the law to remove the President's power also requires enough votes to override the veto. It's much easier for Congress to give away power than to reclaim it.
The President has that power because the authority to veto legislation is an enumerated power from the Constitution.
The conflict exists now because the Congress has surrendered an excess amount of legislative and pecuniary authority to the Executive Branch. the National Emergency Act gives the President some narrowed powers compared to the previous excesses, but it establishes a path through the delegated authorities Congress has released.
The theory seems to be (IMHO) that if the President tried to do something too outrageous, he would not be able to get the support of even 1/3 of the Senate. The Legislative Branch doesn't want its power to be totally usurped. So the broad scope of the NEA doesn't really give him carte blanche, the checks and balances are still there.
If most of the party members just vote the party line, that's a separate problem.
If the President couldn't veto this joint resolution, that would also be a failure of checks and balances. The President's veto power is a check on the power of the Legislative branch.
