Youngstown question- vetoed bills

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
zanda
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:36 am

Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby zanda » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:24 pm

So, if both houses approve a bill, and the president vetoes, and Congress can't overcome the veto, and then the president acts contrary to that bill, is it category 2 or category 3? I believe my prof said it's category 3, but why should that be? Legislative power is shared between the president and the Congress, so in the above situation the President is acting contrary to the will of Congress, but he isn't acting contrary to the will of the larger category of federal actors who have a voice in legislation. Now obviously if Congress could overcome the veto, I'd be on board that it's category 3. But if the federal legislators lack the votes to support a position(because of failure to overcome a presidential veto), why should that not be category 2?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby bk1 » Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:30 pm

It seems to me that it should be category 2. It's not a denial of authority, it's an attempted denial of authority. At least that's how I would read it.

But what your prof says is always the law.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:11 pm

I'm probably way off, but here's what I recollect:

It's category 3 because we can conclusively say that the President doesn't have Congress's approval for what he's doing. Thus, he can rely only on the powers delegated to him, and not borrow anything from Congress, like in Youngstown itself. 2 would be if Congress was silent on the issue, so we don't know if they're with him or against him. But if he's going against what they voted for, they're against him. Does that make sense?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby Renzo » Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:36 pm

There is no right answer. Make an argument both ways, and come down on the same side of the fence as your professor.

Breezin
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby Breezin » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:54 pm

.
Last edited by Breezin on Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby Renzo » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:57 pm

Breezin wrote:sounds like category 3. how do you argue category 2 with a straight face when Congress literally said "no mr. president you can't do that"? if you argue both sides i'd think you were confused.


Well, here's about how I would do it:

zanda wrote:Legislative power is shared between the president and the Congress, so in the above situation the President is acting contrary to the will of Congress, but he isn't acting contrary to the will of the larger category of federal actors who have a voice in legislation.

bk1 wrote:It seems to me that it should be category 2. It's not a denial of authority, it's an attempted denial of authority. At least that's how I would read it.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby bk1 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:59 pm

Agreed with Renzo. I'd argue both sides (but then come to the conclusion that your prof believes).

apl6783
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby apl6783 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:28 am

Hold the phone here gang.

I thought that the "will of congress" was only to be found in duly enacted laws. Since this law was vetoed by POTUS and the veto was not overcome, this bill did not become a law. Because this bill did not become a law, it is not the "will of Congress." The fact that everyone knows that if Congress could speak, that is, if it could get the votes needed to overcome the veto, it would say that the President doesn't have the power to do X act is irrelevant, I thought. In Youngstown, the denial was implied, BUT it was implied by a series of duly enacted laws.

Wouldn't this be category 2 then?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby Renzo » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:45 am

apl6783 wrote:Hold the phone here gang.

I thought that the "will of congress" was only to be found in duly enacted laws. Since this law was vetoed by POTUS and the veto was not overcome, this bill did not become a law. Because this bill did not become a law, it is not the "will of Congress." The fact that everyone knows that if Congress could speak, that is, if it could get the votes needed to overcome the veto, it would say that the President doesn't have the power to do X act is irrelevant, I thought. In Youngstown, the denial was implied, BUT it was implied by a series of duly enacted laws.

Wouldn't this be category 2 then?


Renzo wrote:There is no right answer. Make an argument both ways, and come down on the same side of the fence as your professor.

apl6783
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby apl6783 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:58 pm

Think you're pretty clever because you talk with quotes huh?

I just wanted to make sure what I said wasn't totally off. I loathe constitutional law.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby Renzo » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:03 pm

apl6783 wrote:Think you're pretty clever because you talk with quotes huh?

I just wanted to make sure what I said wasn't totally off. I loathe constitutional law.

:lol:

If three years of lol school taught me anything (and I'm not sure that it did), it taught me to talk using quotes.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby JusticeHarlan » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:40 pm

apl6783 wrote:Hold the phone here gang.

I thought that the "will of congress" was only to be found in duly enacted laws. Since this law was vetoed by POTUS and the veto was not overcome, this bill did not become a law. Because this bill did not become a law, it is not the "will of Congress." The fact that everyone knows that if Congress could speak, that is, if it could get the votes needed to overcome the veto, it would say that the President doesn't have the power to do X act is irrelevant, I thought. In Youngstown, the denial was implied, BUT it was implied by a series of duly enacted laws.

Wouldn't this be category 2 then?

Renzo's right, of course, that this can and should be argued both ways.

But, I don't know that the "the 'will of congress' was only found in duly enacted law." Jackson talks about "the expressed or implied will of Congress" (emphasis added). When arguing down the "it's category 3" fork, I'd hang my hat on that.

apl6783
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby apl6783 » Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:27 pm

JusticeHarlan wrote:
But, I don't know that the "the 'will of congress' was only found in duly enacted law." Jackson talks about "the expressed or implied will of Congress" (emphasis added). When arguing down the "it's category 3" fork, I'd hang my hat on that.



Implied will = Implied from a duly enacted statute (or statutory scheme). I.e., in Youngstown they didn't specifically say YOU CANT DO THIS in their law, but the court said that the scheme of laws they passed implicitly denied POTUS that authority (I think because they had considered it and not put it in there or some shit, but don't remember, not important).

User avatar
Detrox
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby Detrox » Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:24 pm

The Youngstown framework is inherently unstable. Categories 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 have inevitable overlap. SCOTUS has generally written opinions with a distaste and avoidance of category 2 since the category is essentially unhelpful for making a decision. Therefore, when there is some form of Congressional silence (i.e. no passed law as described in this thread's hypo), the judges have had to turn to interpretting Congressional actions short of passing a law to find support for their inevitable argument that the situation is category 1 or 3. Obviously Congress attempting to pass a bill that the president vetoed shows signs that the legislative branch desired things that the executive did not, so there is a strong argument for category 3. Whether or not it's a duly enacted law matters less in the Youngstown analysis since the entire point is that you are trying to determine whether or not the Executive is acting with or without Congressional approval (or directly against Congressional intent).

Make the arguments for both categories, but point out that the facts lend some/more support for Category 3.

Edit: This scenario becomes even more relevant when analyzing congressional committee records, or bills that passed the senate but not the house etc etc. All of these provide some support for removing the issue from category 2 and shifting it closer to 1 or 3.

apl6783
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Youngstown question- vetoed bills

Postby apl6783 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:47 pm

QUESTION

I just now thought about this, but once we find out that we're in category two, then what? Do we say something about how he has his power to recognize foreign nations or his commander in chief stuff so maybe it's OK if its related to those, or what?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], chicharon, m052310, splitterfromhell and 4 guests