Conlawprof Digest, Vol 64, Issue 9
kalt at law.msu.edu
Tue Feb 10 16:53:34 PST 2009
For what it's worth, my copy of art. II, § 3 says "shall."
>>> <conlawprof-request at lists.ucla.edu> 2/10/2009 3:00 PM >>>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:29:16 -0500
From: guayiya <guayiya at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: president as chief legislator?
To: Mae Kuykendall <mae.kuykendall at law.msu.edu>
Cc: LawCourts-L at usc.edu, Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Message-ID: <4991029C.6020900 at bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
There was controversy over art 2 sec 3 at the convention, and the
original "shall recommend" was changed to "may."
But let's stipulate that the P has power not only to call for action,
but also to draw up a specific proposal, have it introduced as a bill,
and threaten to veto any law that deviates too far from his plan.
Does that not make congressional legislation an empty formality?
Mae Kuykendall wrote:
>Brian Kalt requested that I post the following comment by him:
>"Some thoughts, after reading the Constitution:
>First, art. II, ? 3 does direct the president to "recommend to [Congress's] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." So it certainly seems fair to consider the Constitution as setting the president up as a leader in the legislative process.
>Second, given that the president has the power to veto, it seems unexceptional to me that this translates into a power to shape the content of legislation ex ante.
>Given these two things, and given that the commentators have ample basis to place more confidence in the president than in Congress, it doesn't seem that disturbing to me." Brian Kalt
>>>>guayiya <guayiya at bellsouth.net> 02/08/09 9:00 PM >>>
>I find it very disturbing that many commentators are chiding the
>President for allowing Congress to legislate, instead of dictating to
>them the stimulus package he desires. Have these folks ever read the
More information about the Conlawprof