Held: No. Congress may not employ “legislative veto” to oversee delegations of
power. First, violation under the Presentments Clauses (Art I, §7 cl.2), Congress
is required to involve both houses and to present the legislation to the President
(see Article I § 7 cls. 2-3). Second, this particular veto provision, since it
could be exercised by a single house, violated the bicameral requirement of Art I, of 1 and 7. Third, the overruling of the Attorney General’s decision on a
deportation matter did constitute the exercise of legislative power–it had the
purpose and effect of altering the legal rights, duties, and relations of
persons…outside the legislative branch. This was an unconstitutional action.
In only four instances may either house act alone: (1) impeachment; (2) trial
after impeachment; (3) ratification of treaties; (4) confirmation of presidential appointments.
The exercise of power here cut out President’s legitimate role in the lawmaking
process. Although the exercise of the legislative veto is efficient, this is not
the overriding concern of the Constitution. The Court’s stated concern was maintaining separation of powers to prevent tyranny.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to What was the holding of the court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v.. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.