Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

of fundamental rights in any, it follows that the House may adopt either or all, or it may provide for a combination of any two of the methods. That was done by the rule in question; and all that rule attempts to do is to prescribe a method for ascertaining the presence of a majority, and thus establishing the fact that the House is in a condition to transact business. As it appears from the journal, at the time this bill passed the House there was present a majority, a quorum, and the House was authorized to transact any and all business. It was in a condition to act on the bill if it desired. The other branch of the question is, whether, a quorum being present, the bill received a sufficient number of votes; and here the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body."

§ 251. Revenue Measures.

The Constitution provides that "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."

This provision has given rise to frequent controversies between the two Houses of Congress, but has but seldom been passed upon by the courts. No formal definition of a revenue measure has been given by the Supreme Court, but in Twin City National Bank v. Nebeker1 the court, in effect, held that a bill, the primary purpose of which is not the raising of revenue, is not a measure that must originate in the House, even though, incidentally, a revenue will be derived by the United States from its execution.

The House has, upon a number of occasions, refused to agree to or consider senatorial amendments to revenue measures upon the ground that the amendments have enlarged the scope or changed the character of the measure as originated in the House. The views held by the House and the Senate, respectively, regard ing what, in specific instances, should properly be termed revenue measures and what proper amendments thereto, do not need to

4167 U. S. 196; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 766; 42 L. ed. 134.

5 See Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives, Chapter XLVII.

be stated in this treatise. They are set out at length in Mr. Hinds' treatise. Especially the House has denied, and the Senate has insisted upon, its right to originate measures which repeal a law or portion of a law imposing taxes, duties, imposts or excises.

§ 252. Appropriation Acts.

It would seem that the Senate has full power to originate measures appropriating money from the federal treasury. This right has at times been denied by certain members of the House, but the House has not itself formally adopted this negative view.

§ 253. Presidential Participation in Law Making.

The duties and powers of the President with reference to the enactment of laws are stated in Clause 2 of Section VII of Article I of the Constitution. This clause reads: 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 approve 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 twothirds 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."

6 Precedents of the House of Representatives.

7 See especially the views of the minority in House Report No. 147, 46th Cong., 3d Sess.; also Hinds, § 1500.

In an earlier chapter it has been pointed out that the foregoing provisions have no application to amendments to the Constitution proposed by Congress to the States for their approval or disapproval.

$254. Resolutions.

In the Fifty-fourth Congress, 2d Session, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary was requested to report whether a certain resolution mentioned in a law should be in the form of a "joint resolution," and whether it was necessary that "concurrent resolutions " should be submitted to the President of the United States.

In its report the committee, while admitting that Clause 3, Section VII of Article I of the Constitution, literally applied, would make it necessary that every joint or concurrent resolution of Congress, whatever its substance or intent, would have to be submitted to the President for his approval, go on to say that the Constitution must look beyond the mere form of a resolution, to its subject-matter, and that the words "to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary are to be construed to relate only to matters of legislation to which the concurrent action of both Houses is by the Constitution made absolutely necessary; in short, only to legislative measures. Thus, in general, joint resolutions need to be sent to the President; concurrent resolutions do not. Of these latter the committee say: "For over a hundred years they have never been so pre

sented. They have uniformly been regarded by all the Depart ments of the Government as matters peculiarly within the prov ince of Congress alone. They have never embraced legislative decisions proper, and hence have never been deemed to require executive approval. This practical construction of the Constitution, thus acquiesced in for a century, must be deemed the true construction with which no court will interfere."

§ 255. Parts of Bills May not Be Vetoed.

In those States whose Constitutions have not expressly given the executive the power to approve parts, and disapprove the

remainder of bills, it has been uniformly held that he has not the power. When, however, he has attempted to do so, the decisions have been in conflict as to whether such partial approval is no approval at all and amounts to a veto, or whether the entire measure is to be treated as approved, the disapproval of the parts being considered a nullity.

§ 256. Riders.

The federal Executive has never attempted the exercise of, or claimed, the right to veto parts of measures submitted to him by Congress, and to approve the remainder. Because thus bound to accept or reject a bill as a whole, Congress has at times attempted to force the hand of the President by incorporating into a measure which it is known he will feel almost obligated to sign, provisions which it is believed he would disapprove if submitted to him as independent propositions. At times, however, these socalled "riders" have led to the veto of the entire bill. President Hayes returned without his approval several appropriation bills which contained legislation which was not agreeable to him. President Johnson returned the act of March 2, 1867 (Army Appropriation Bill), with his signature, but in a message of protest said: "These provisions are contained in the second section, which in certain cases virtually deprives the President of his constitutional functions as commander-in-chief of the army, and in the sixth section which denies to ten States of the Union their constitutional right to protect themselves in any emergency, by means of their own militia. These provisions are out of place in an appropriation act. I am compelled to defeat these necessary appropriations if I withhold my signature from the act.”

§ 257. May Bills Be Signed by the President after the Adjournment of Congress?

As appears from the constitutional provision which has been quoted, a measure, if not returned to Congress within ten days,

8 See Art. by Jas. D. Barnett, "The Executive Control of the Legislature," Am. Law Rev., XLI, 384.

Sundays excepted, becomes a law without the President's signature. If, however, Congress adjourns before the expiration of the ten days, the measure does not become a law and this is known as a pocket veto. The question has, however, been several times raised whether the President may not, if he desires the bill to become a law, sign after the adjournment of Congress.

In 1824 President Monroe by inadvertence failed to sign a bill before the adjournment of Congress and the question was discussed by his Cabinet as to his right to sign, notwithstanding the adjournment. Some difference of opinion being manifested, the President decided not to sign.

In 1863 President Lincoln signed a bill eight days after Congress had adjourned. At the next session of Congress the Judiciary Committee of the House, having been instructed to consider the constitutionality of this, unanimously reported that the bill was not a law. No action was taken by the House upon this report, but later substantially the same measure was re-enacted by Congress and signed by the President. The committee, in its report referred to, said: "The ten days' limitation . . . refers to the time during which Congress remains in session, and has no application after adjournment. Hence if the Executive can hold a bill ten days after adjournment and then approve it, he can as well hold it ten months before approval. This would render the laws of the country uncertain and could not have been intended by the framers of the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution evidently requires the performance of every act necessary to the enactment and approval of laws to be perfect before the adjournment of Congress.'

[ocr errors]

9 In United States v. Weil (29 Ct. of Cl. 523) the Court of Claims held that the Supreme Court had impliedly upheld the earlier act, signed after adjournment, by passing upon claims arising under it. However, it is to be observed that the act was valid upon its face, and the point as to the date of its signature was not raised, and the court was not obliged to take judicial cognizance of it.

Professor Barnett in an article in the Am. Law Rev., XLI, 230, entitled "The Executive Control of the Legislature," and Mr. Renick in an article in the same journal, XXXII, 208, entitled "The Power of the President to Sign Bills after the Adjournment of Congress," give a full discussion of this

« PředchozíPokračovat »