3 ms·
I was under the impression that no body has unilateral authority to create law (besides the creation of law through court precedent), so I'm not sure what value
by vageli 7y ago
I was under the impression that no body has unilateral authority to create law (besides the creation of law through court precedent), so I'm not sure what value this distinction adds. That's like saying Congress doesn't make laws, they only propose them. Well, of course that's true but we tend to say that Congress makes the laws as a matter of course. I mean, we even call them "lawmakers", not "lawproposers".
- jkaplowitz 7y agoA veto-overriding supermajority of both houses of Congress (or a regular majority of each house plus the President's signature or acquiescence) has absolute authority to create statute law at the federal level, within the authority granted to it by the US Constitution; and this statute law can override any other type of federal, state, or local law except the federal Constitution itself. No other authority has to approve before the change goes into effect, and the Supreme Court will go along with such changes even if they change court precedent unless the law violates the constitutional restrictions on Congress. Most proposed laws don't, including the one we're discussing here. By contrast, for a federal constitutional amendment, even if every single US Senator and every single member of the House of Representatives votes yes (note that the President is not involved in this process), if the states take no action, no amendment happens. Very different.