In a clash between the executive branch and the legislative branch over an issue such as the U.S. budget, what powers can Congress bring to bear to influence the executive branch? What are some limits to its ability to get its way?
All three branches of government have checks over the other two. In your example, if congress wants a particular budget, and the president veto's the bill, the congress can override his veto with 2/3 majority.
Congress passes laws, the executive branch (President) executes them. Or that is the way it is suppose to work. So congress can influence the executive branch by passing laws. Of course the president can veto it. So congress often attaches "must pass" riders to get their way, if they don't have the votes to over ride a veto.
In your specific example, keep in mind that the budget is just a wish list with no real force. The appropriations bills are what determines how much money the president can spend. They have to be passed by congress and signed by the president, so they have to work together to find a compromise. Or shut major parts of the government down, which has happened.
Are you sayin that the president will lay down if the congress tells him to?? I don't think so. Or am I missing something?
excon
Not necessarily. The goal of congress is to get the president to lay down. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Both sides try to bully (politely, of course) the other and see which one blinks. A lot of politics is gamesmanship. If you can't persuade the opposition to agree to your point of view, then create a situation where they will look bad for opposing you. Or give them political cover so they can yield to you.
In furtherance of our discussion, I'm curious as to whether signing statements are legal. I'm talking about the ones that Bush signed saying that he reserves the right NOT to do what the law he just signed tells him to do...
In furtherance of our discussion, I'm curious as to whether signing statements are legal. I'm talking about the ones that Bush signed saying that he reserves the right NOT to do what the law he just signed tells him to do...
What's up with that?
excon
Interesting point. I recall reading that several presidents, of both parties, have done that. Just not to the extent that Bush did. Legal? That's beyond me. Ethical? I would say no. If a president doesn't agree with a bill and doesn't feel he can execute the law he ought to veto it. Of course my two cents worth has never influenced a politician.
But once he signs it, it's law. So his signing statement doesn't bind the next president to his views. Or the courts. Quite a mess!
Ethical? I would say no. If a president doesn't agree with a bill and doesn't feel he can execute the law he ought to veto it. Of course my two cents worth has never influenced a politician.
Hello again, walt:
I couldn't agree more. It makes a mockery of the stuff you and I both said above to the OP.
I think congress should pass a law that says the president can't make signing statements.. The president will probably sign the bill, and write a signing statement saying he doesn't have to follow it. ????? It's like we actually went THROUGH the looking glass.
Look, walt. You're over there in Va. They live all around you. Can't you whack some sense into 'em???
Linear Mode
