Nicely done analysis. I have a small quibble. In INS v. Chadha, the provision of law invalidated by the court was a single-chamber veto. Would the USSC have ruled the same had both chambers (the entire branch) been required? We don’t know at this time. But, I do like the Moseley’s argument.
“I have a small quibble. In INS v. Chadha, the provision of law invalidated by the court was a single-chamber veto. Would the USSC have ruled the same had both chambers (the entire branch) been required? We don’t know at this time. But, I do like the Moseley’s argument.”
The substance of the Supreme Court’s reasoning strongly, strongly indicates that a 2 house veto would also be unconstitutional.
The reasoning was based on “the presentment clause” (as it is called). That is the structure of our Constitution is that the legislature passes laws and PRESENTS the law to the President for signature or veto.
The flaw found in Chadha was that changing the law after the President signed it would violate the structure and process of legislation. Once the President signs a bill, Congress can’t go back and rewrite it or claw it back.
However, it is true that when the SCOTUS makes one decision but doesn’t extend it to the next logical step, it is very hazardous to assume what the SCOTUS would do next. The COurt has strongly indicated that it would take the same approach on a similar situation, then DID NOT do what it suggested when the next logical case came up.