Quick Con Law Question Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
Grapes

New
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Quick Con Law Question

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Assume that Congress enacts a law the final section of which provides: "This law will not be repealed or amended except by a 60% or greater majority in both of Congress."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

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 pm

Re: Quick Con Law Question

Post by 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

New
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Quick Con Law Question

Post by 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 President can veto a repealed law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

New
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Quick Con Law Question

Post by Grapes » Thu May 12, 2011 7:46 pm

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

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”