So Much for the President's Assent to the McCain Amendment

Frank Cross crossf at mail.utexas.edu
Mon Jan 2 17:07:30 PST 2006


Sure, if the whole statute is unconstitutional, but the issue is if only a 
small part of the bill is unconstitutional.  I can see no logical reason 
requiring the veto of the entire statute, which is constitutional, perhaps 
extremely beneficial or even constitutionally compelled.  And of course the 
veto might be overridden, in which case all the Pres has is executive 
power, reported in the signing statement.


At 06:53 PM 1/2/2006, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 1/2/2006 7:35:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>crossf at mail.utexas.edu writes:
>If you think the President has the legal authority to determine that a law 
>is unconstitutional, rather than being wholly subordinate to the 
>Congressional interpretation, the signing statement is a good thing -- 
>because it gives the Presidential decision transparency.
>
>        If the President believes that the law as Congress understands is 
> unconstitutional or if
>the President believes that the law as presented is seriously susceptible 
>to an interpretation which would render it unconstitutional, let the 
>President veto it. That's transparency, isn't it?
>
>Bobby
>
>Robert Justin Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of Law
>Delaware

**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060102/53e6f136/attachment.html


More information about the Conlawprof mailing list