Discussions on the interface between Science and Society, Politics, Religion, Life, and whatever else I decide to write about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the president is not required to follow laws passed by Congress.We see bills that become laws all the time, but a President chooses to not fund them, thereby rendering them null and void. How about when a President issues an executive order? In many cases those are in opposition to established law.
The president is required to follow laws that were passed by Congress and signed by a president (or overrode(riden?) a veto).You are correct that funding may be withheld (in certain cases as not all laws require funding to be enacted) which can effectively prevent a law from being enforced. However, I would point out that the law still exists, it is not void strictly speaking. But for all intense and purposes, as you note, such an action would result in a law not being enforced (and we've reached the edge of my civics).If by executive orders you are referring to signing statements a president can attach to a law (used in great quantity by the previous president). These basically don't mean a thing. It would be akin to signing your mortgage and at the bottom of the page writing "The bank president doesn't deserve her salary." You'll still pay the mortgage (or lose your property and the bank president will still get paid. In the signing statement, a president will often write what they think the law means or what they will do/not do regarding the law. But this is not binding on anyone and may help lay the ground work for potential litigation.
Thanks for the clarification. I caught this link this morning that talks about this issue a bit more.http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/doma_and_conservative_preceden.php
I think this is the link you were shooting for CL
Post a Comment
4 comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the president is not required to follow laws passed by Congress.
We see bills that become laws all the time, but a President chooses to not fund them, thereby rendering them null and void.
How about when a President issues an executive order? In many cases those are in opposition to established law.
The president is required to follow laws that were passed by Congress and signed by a president (or overrode(riden?) a veto).
You are correct that funding may be withheld (in certain cases as not all laws require funding to be enacted) which can effectively prevent a law from being enforced. However, I would point out that the law still exists, it is not void strictly speaking. But for all intense and purposes, as you note, such an action would result in a law not being enforced (and we've reached the edge of my civics).
If by executive orders you are referring to signing statements a president can attach to a law (used in great quantity by the previous president). These basically don't mean a thing. It would be akin to signing your mortgage and at the bottom of the page writing "The bank president doesn't deserve her salary." You'll still pay the mortgage (or lose your property and the bank president will still get paid. In the signing statement, a president will often write what they think the law means or what they will do/not do regarding the law. But this is not binding on anyone and may help lay the ground work for potential litigation.
Thanks for the clarification. I caught this link this morning that talks about this issue a bit more.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/doma_and_conservative_preceden.php
I think this is the link you were shooting for CL
Post a Comment