Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: Legal Theory BlogBaude on Signing Unconstitutional Laws
By Lawrence Solum
-
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.
Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on August 25, 2010 (boomark / email).
Dumb New York Laws
Stupid Laws in the Empire State
Dumb Texas Laws
Stupid Laws in the Lone Star State
Dumb California Laws
Stupid Laws in the Sunshine State
Dumb Foreign Laws
Stupid Laws of Other Countries
New York, NY and the NYPD
alleging false arrest for violating an unconstitutional anti-loitering law.
California Labor Laws
alleged violations of California labor laws such as overtime pay, discrimination and harassment.
Grubb & Ellis
alleging violations of fiduciary duties to shareholders and securities laws.
Hewlett-Packard and Staples
allegedly violated antitrust laws in collaborating on the sale of replacement ink jet printer cartridges.
Damaged Billboards
Lamar Advertising pays $35,000 settlement after violating permit laws.
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.

When and How to Use Signing Statements to Declare Law Unconstitutional
Obama Directs Agencies to Consult AG Before Relying on Bush's Signing Statements
Obama Issues Signing Statement Only Days After Negating Such Bush Statements
Use of Signing Statements Curtailed
Obama on Signing Statements: A Small Step Sideways








