3 ms·
There's a line of thinking that, if you can do a thing: "I can veto legislature", then you can do a weaker version of that thing: "I can veto a line or a word f
by mcphage 7y ago
There's a line of thinking that, if you can do a thing: "I can veto legislature", then you can do a weaker version of that thing: "I can veto a line or a word from legislature". Similarly, "I can fire a person for no reason" becomes 'weakened' to "I can fire a person for specific reason X".
I think Frankenstein Vetos demonstrates that that thinking is folly, but that's how the reasoning goes. And at least in the case of firings, we've recognized that, just because you can fire a person for no reason, doesn't mean that there can't be reason that would be illegal to fire them.
- fermata 7y agoIf you have the power to approve or reject a bill, then the power to approve, reject, OR ALTER the bill is a stronger power, not a weaker one. In this case, a vastly stronger one.
- mcphage 7y agoIt turns out, yes, and that’s why these are illegal. But if you argue that vetoing a bill means vetoing every line of it, then vetoing almost every line is a weaker process—like “I can’t carry this whole pile up the stairs, so I’ll carry a few things up at a time” becomes “I can’t reject this whole bill, so I’ll reject just part of it”. But as we see, that argument doesn’t really hold up.