Will the law be constitutional then?
Will the law be constitutional then?
No. It isn't now, and it won't be then. But none of that absolves a President of the responsibility to consider the constitutionality of a bill and act accordingly.
First, thanks to Michiganer for posting the history of George Washington's first use of the veto -- and on constitutional grounds. I hadn't read that document before.
Second, thanks to Uncle Fud for introducing some common sense to the discussion. The veto power found in Article I, Section 7, does not require any particular kind of reason for a Presidential veto. It may be constitutional, as was Washington's in 1792, it may be simply disagreement with the politics of the bill.
The President IS, however, expected to state his "objections" in returning the bill to the House from which it originated. There is no requirement that the stated oobjections are the ones he really has in mind.
Executive vetoes were well known, prior to the writing of the Constitution. All of the Royal Governors of the Colonies had absolute veto power. When they rejected a bill, there was no provision for an override. As the states wrote constitutions for themselves, many provided for vetos in their Presidents (or Governors) but allowed for an override.
The first national government under the Articles of Confederation had a weak and largely eremonial "President." He was elected by Congress for a one-year term and had no veto. An example of how little the office meant then is that John Hancock was too ill to travel, and never went to the Capitol during his year as "President."
When the Constitutional Convention gave the President a veto subject to an override, they included the requirement that he state his "objections." This was simply common sense. If Congress was going to reconsider the bill, it should know why the President vetoed it in the first place.
As for your question, Howlin, whether Congress' passing a law over a Presidential veto then makes it "constitutional," the answer is no. As others have stated on this thread, the Supreme Court has the FINAL determination on whether any bill -- or other action of the government -- is constitutional.
However, long before that point, it is clear that any Representative, any Senator, any President can refuse to support any bill for any reason, including the reason that he or she thinks the bill is unconstitutional.
Applying that general theory to the facts at hand, CFR is so blatantly unconstitutional that no self-respecting Representative, Senator or President should have supported it in its present form. Driven by press acounts of Enron and Global Crossing (and their lavish financial buttering of both sides of the aisle), the lot of them stampeded and passed a bad bill.
Now the last defense of the First Amendment will be in the Supreme Court, probably before November. I'll be there. We will beat this monster. And then, though not before then, the folks on FreeRepublic who care about the Constitution can breath a sigh of relief.
The two links below deal with different aspects of this situation.
Congressman Billybob
Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.
Click here for latest column: "Does Anybody READ the Constitution?"
It will be the law regardless. The Supreme Court may be called
upon to decide the constitutionality of that law, and their
decision now becomes the law, until another Supreme Court
rules differently. Or congress writes another law, or amends the
constitution.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You must think everyone
who questions anything Bush does is a Bush hater, then blindly
go into attack(carville) mode. I support Bush always have, but
he is dead wrong on this issue, in my opinion. And I am entitled
to say so, unless someone sneaked in an amendment while
we wern't looking.