United States Constitution: The Legislative Process

Usually the presentment clause is thought of as the power of the president to veto bills passed by both houses of the congress, but it is arguably much more than such. This clause might be referred as the lawmaking process clause which establishes a clear pathway into how to pass or reject bills from congress to the president. Descriptive terms used by president Trump toward the House of Representatives as the “do nothing Dems” but there is a lack of legislation from the Republican led Senate. Who controls legislation getting approved into law by the president? Is it really the House of Representatives or the Senate, or the president, or Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2? In the current presidential atmosphere, the Presentment Clause may be blamed for lack of legislation bills approved by the Senate and the president to become law, but it is also one that has precedence into separation of powers.

The legislative process is divided into three clauses which continue with the separation of powers of the three branches. They explain the lawmaking process as, mainly, starting at the House of Representatives moving to the Senate and lastly, ending at the President’s desk for final say. According to Wildener, “The Presentment Clause was not meant to be a theoretical safeguard or superfluous provision in the Constitution; the Founders included it to prevent the President from acting like King James II.” (Wildener, 111). It was placed specifically to protect democracy from monarchy or authoritarian governments. Clause 1 states: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills,” (Constitution) The first clause reassures that as with legislation, raising revenue should also originate in the House of Representatives and guaranties the Senate may continue to propose or add on Amendments. Clause 2 states:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

In short, the second and third clause gives the President the power to Veto but it also provides a path as to how Congress may override its Veto with ⅔ vote from both Houses and it removes Sunday from the ten days allotted to the President. Clause 3 states: “Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitation prescribed in the Case of a Bill.” (Constitution).

With heavily partisan Congress even when bills are drafted and passed in the House of Representatives they do not necessarily move on to the Senate and thus get lost or delayed in the legislative system. Once they do reach the President, he may choose to sign or veto. Mitch McConnell on repeated occasions including immigration and budget to name a few, has chosen not to debate them in the Senate unless the President has assured, he will agree to them and sign, (Horseley, 2019).

The presentment clause was present in other presidencies including Clinton’s were legislation was still getting passed despite heavily partisan lines. The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was challenged in Clinton v. New York. The Act “granted the President power to cancel certain discretionary spending provisions in duly passed legislation. Opponents criticized this Act as both being an unconstitutional delegation of power to the President and a violation of the Presentment Clause of the Constitution” (Woodworth, 349). Was the Commander in Chief given additional control that overpowered the other two branches of the government? The Supreme Court voted the Act violated the Presentment Clause but did not write an opinion about separation of powers, (Woodworth, 349-350) but they did write that, “While the Court agreed the President has law-making responsibilities arising from both Article I and Article II of the Constitution, neither article authorized the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes,” (Woodworth, 351). Furthermore, three reasons were given by the court as to why the cancellation power here was different and in turn violate the Presentment Clause. First, the veto of a bill occurs before the bill may become law but under the Line Item Veto Act the power of the Executive branch could cancel a bill within five days after it has already become a law giving it absolute authority over Congress. “Second, the 'return' of the bill rejects the legislation in its entirety, while the Line Item Veto Act authorized the President to cancel portions of a bill.” Third and last, the Constitution does not say anything on “unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes,” (Woodworth, 351-352).

The Presentment Clause aimed to maintain the separation of powers from the three branches while they collaborated to move a bill into law. The Constitution gave primary authority to Congress in regard to legislation, but it also gave the President a “check” over the Congressional branch. “Clauses 2 and 3 of Article I, section 7 say that every bill, order, resolution, or vote that requires the concurrence of both Houses must be presented to the President for approval, ' (Woodworth, 359). The founders thought this article would suffice to maintain the balance in separation of powers in the legislation process between Congress and the President, (Woodworth 360).

Furthermore, there were additional challenges to the Executive power used later by President Obama in regard to the Affordable Care Act. “President Obama's decision to delay the ACA employer mandate and portions of the individual mandate violates the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. Stepping back from the political fray, a president's authority to delay or suspend enacted laws proves troubling because it disrupts the carefully designed separation-of-powers system of government envisioned by the Founders. Specifically, a suspension power bypasses bicameralism and the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Clinton v. City of New York.” (Widener, 110).

Ultimately, who is to blame for little or no legislation from the United States government? Everyone. According to NPR, “Congress largely ignored previous Trump budgets, even when Republicans were in full control. That's practically certain to happen now that House Democrats have a shared grip on the purse strings.” Congress’ inability or unwillingness to cross party lines to work collaboratively, cooperatively with each other, and even take opportunities to blame the other party is outweighing the principle of being elected by the people for their representation in government. The Presentment Clause aimed at maintaining a balance in lawmaking to prevent a branch from having ultimate rule over others, but it is also filled with all checks which prevents legislation from passing both Houses and reaching the President. Perhaps there will be new challenges to the Presentment Clause as the DACA hearing approaches the Supreme Court and a new President’s policies might be affected by the Court’s ruling. Will the new ruling aide immigration reform in the legislation or will Executive Power be at play once again?

Works Cited

• Horsely, Scott. Trump Seeks More Border Wall Funding in New Budget. All Things Considered, NPR. 11 March 2019. Digital
• @RealDonaldTrump (Donald J. Trump). “The Do Nothing Democrats are Con Artists [sic], only looking to hurt the Republican Party and President. Their total focus is 2020, nothing more, and nothing less. The good news is that WE WILL WIN!!!![sic]” Oct. 9, 2019, 5:22 AM.
• United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 7. Clause 1-3.
• Widener, Mitchell. The Presentment Clause Meets the Suspension Power: the Affordable Care Act’s Long and Winding Road to Implementation. Public Interest Law Journal. Vol. 24-109. Boston University, 2015. Digital.
• Woodworth, Thomas, C. Meet the Presentment Clause: Clinton vs. New York. Louisiana Law Review. Vol. 60, Issue 1. 1999. Digital.