Quick Con Law Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Grapes
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Quick Con Law Question

Postby Grapes » Wed May 11, 2011 2:55 pm

Hi I have a quick question about con law don't get this question.

Assume that Congress enacts a law the final section of which provides: "This law will not be repealed or amended except by a 60% or greater majority in both of Congress." Is this final section constitutional? Explain why or why not.

User avatar
frank galvin
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 pm

Re: Quick Con Law Question

Postby frank galvin » Wed May 11, 2011 5:12 pm

Assuming that section was an otherwise sound expression of federal power, I do not see how it would be unconstitutional. However, it would be a nullity. That would not be binding. You would need a constitutional amendment for that.

Grapes
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Quick Con Law Question

Postby Grapes » Wed May 11, 2011 6:03 pm

I thought it would be unconstitutional because of the line item veto. President can veto a repealed law

The constitutional provision would take away that power violating the separation of powers

And moreover, it would require two-thirds majority of congress 66% rather than 60% for Congress to override the president's veto

i could be way off though

Grapes
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Quick Con Law Question

Postby Grapes » Thu May 12, 2011 7:46 pm

bump. test is in an hour. hoping to see other responses




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: butlerraider1, dabigchina, Downstairs_Mixup, greengrass, Harry Belafonte, LawHammer, marshall1 and 21 guests