ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Legal Theory Blog

Baude on Signing Unconstitutional Laws

By Lawrence Solum

ADVERTISEMENTS
William Baude (Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP) has posted Signing Unconstitutional Laws (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
    It has become fairly common for Presidents to sign laws that they think are (at least partly) unconstitutional. Some scholars argue that this practice is itself unconstitutional. Others defend it, but on pragmatic grounds, as if one cannot afford to be a constitutional formalist in today?s government. Both sides are wrong. Formalism provides a principled justification for signing unconstitutional laws and a legal test for when the President may do so. We are not forced to choose between a President who is obligated to veto crucial legislation and one who places expediency over constitutional principle.

    In a wide range of cases, there is nothing wrong with signing unconstitutional laws. Indeed, it is required. First, as a matter of constitutional law, the President?s duties are more complicated than have been assumed. The President has no categorical duty to veto every unconstitutional law, but he must take seriously the constitutional risks created by signing one. Second, the President?s broad duty to enforce the Constitution frequently requires him to help pass legislation?especially in the national-security and individual-rights contexts.

    The President?s duty to sign unconstitutional laws arises when these circumstances intersect. The President is faced with a partly unconstitutional law that also contains provisions that are unconstitutionally required. At that point, nothing flatly forbids him from signing the law, and he must consider the tradeoffs in terms of constitutional consequences. Sometimes those tradeoffs will lead him to believe that he must sign the bill, even though it is unconstitutional. Several Presidents in recent memory?include Richard Nixon and George W. Bush?have been faced with such circumstances, and this Essay argues that they were right to sign the unconstitutional bills.

Recommended!

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on August 25, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 11/05/26 23:47:30)