Lawyers are fond of proposing a hypothetical when they have a point to prove, but no facts with which to substantiate it. Since many, if not most in Congress, have a legal background and all are sworn to uphold the law as codified in the Constitution let’s see how this hypothetical might work.
Both houses of Congress have passed a bill on which there is wide consensus. The citizenry is heavily supportive. So great is the Congressional agreement that there is no need for a conference committee to iron out differences between the house and senate versions. Only one thing remains to make it law: the President’s signature.
But here’s the rub: the President doesn’t like the bill. A veto would easily be overridden by the senate. Being the astute politician that he is, he finds a solution. There is an election coming up in less than a year. All of the House of Representatives will be standing for reelection as will one-third of the Senate. The President has another two years in office. With a substantially different congress in just 11 months, he can veto the bill and hope that the majority in the Senate will change in his favor, so the President decides to ignore the whole thing.
Not only will he ignore the fact that Congress has fulfilled its constitutional duty, he will refuse to even read the bill; he will not talk to any member of Congress about it. He will have all letters from the electorate ignored. The obvious merits of the bill will have no influence on the President’s refusal to even consider it. His argument is that “the people should decide,” disregarding the fact that the representatives of the people have already decided. In his mind it is only logical the new Congress reconsider the bill when he returns it with his veto.
Can you imagine how quickly our Congressman, Bob Goodlatte, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would convene his band of brothers to roll out the impeachment scenario? And with good reason; the President has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. In the interim the law (let’s assume it is really important such as strengthening the voting rights act) has no power and real damage is done to the country.
What would happen? Probably nothing. By the time the machinery of impeachment and the Senate vote to remove the President takes place he might have enough Congressional clout to avoid removal and sustain a veto. At least, that would be his hope.
Nowhere is there constitutional wording that says, in effect, than no action can be taken in the last year of office by Congress until there is intervening election. Only the 27th amendment speaks to a similar issue: Congress may not increase or decrease their salaries until there is an intervening election. It took over 202 years to ratify that on May 2, 1992.
We face a similar breach of the Constitution now with the impasse reached over Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In a remarkable display of hubris, Senator McConnell states that not only will he not meet with the nominee, there will be no hearings, let alone a committee vote. What profound disrespect of the office of the Presidency, of the Constitution, and the will of the citizenry! Most inane of all is the majority leader’s statement the Democrats would do the same thing if the tables were reversed. All that shows is that politics trumps the Constitution. No wonder we are all depressed about the possibility of bipartisan cooperation on anything. Heaven knows (we hope) what will happen in the fall elections but the prospects should not be brought into play when it comes to Congress and/or the President upholding the Constitution until their last day in office.
J. Hayden Hollingsworth