The Veto Power: The Legislative Veto Congress attempts to overturn an executive action without bicameralism or presentment - UNCONSTITUTIONAL

INS v. Chadha (1983) Facts Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), which authorized either House of Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the U.S. Attorney General, the House of Representatives suspended an immigration judges deportation ruling regarding Chadha. Issue: Was the part of the act authorizing the one house veto constitutional? [NO] Holding: The legislative veto is unconstitutional - If Congress wants to do something legislative in character, it has to go through bill making process outlined in Constitution (something is legislative if it affects the rights of individuals). If it affects legal rights and duties, or individuals [those outside of legislative branch], it must go through bicameralism & presentment. If Congress wants to overturn an executive action, has to go through process outlined in Constitution (bicameralism [passage of both house and senate] and presentment [signature of president]) Statues cannot have legislative veto The dissent accused the majority of judicial activisma formalist majority is striking down provisions of 200 statutes (not worrying about function) The Line Item Veto: The president attempts to veto part of a bill, while signing the rest into law - UNCONSTITUTIONAL Clinton v. City of New York (1998) The court ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution because it impermissibly gave the president the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by Congress. There is a process for how legislation is created and by giving President this power, letting president do their job for them. Congress cant delegate power that threatened separation of powers President must sign the whole bill, or veto the whole bill! Cant essentially repeal and re-writing it the way he wanted to President cant legislate! Thats Congress job!

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 5.88", Left

Noel Canning v. NLRB (DC Cir. 2013) FACT Employer petitioned for review of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision, finding that it violated National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement reached with union. NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order. PROCEDURAL POSTURE Petitioner company sought review of a decision of respondent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision finding that the company violated 8(a)(1) and (5), 29 U.S.C.S. 158(a)(1), (5), of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement reached with a union. The NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order Overview On the merits of the NLRB decision, the company argued that the NLRB did not properly follow applicable contract law in determining that an agreement had been reached and that therefore, the finding of unfair labor practice was erroneous. The merits arguments failed. The company also argued that the NLRB lacked authority to act for want of a quorum, as three members of the five-member Board were never validly appointed because they took office under putative recess appointments which were made when the Senate was not in recess. Second, it asserted that the vacancies these three members purportedly filled did not happen during the Recess of the Senate, as required for recess appointments by the U.S. Constitution. The appointments were constitutionally invalid and the Board therefore lacked a quorum. The NLRB conceded that the appointments at issue were not made during the intersession recess: the President made his three appointments to the NLRB on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued. Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. ISSUE (1) Whether the Presidents recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the Presidents recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions. HOLDING Failure to urge objection before NLRB that it lacked power to act due lack of a validly constituted quorum came within extraordinary circumstances exception to jurisdictional exhaustion statute, therefore permitting judicial review, and Board lacked authority to act for want of a quorum, as three members of the five-member Board were never validly appointed under Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution. .OUTCOME The petition of the company was granted and the NLRB's order was vacated. The cross-petition of the NLRB for enforcement of its invalid order was denied.