Presidential Power: Can Federal Law Override California State Laws?

The US Constitution does not grant the President the power to override state laws. While the President can approve or veto a bill, the final decision lies with Congress. The President's influence on social media and public opinion can, however, sway citizens' compliance with state laws and put political pressure on state-level officeholders.

Congress can override a presidential veto

While the President of the United States has the authority to veto legislation passed by Congress, Congress can override the President's veto. This is made possible by Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution, which outlines the veto power. To override a presidential veto, Congress must muster a two-thirds vote in each house, and this process applies to both regular and "pocket" vetoes.

A regular veto is when the President returns unsigned legislation to the originating house of Congress within a 10-day period, typically accompanied by a memorandum of disapproval or a "veto message." On the other hand, a "pocket veto" occurs when Congress adjourns before the 10-day period is up, preventing the return of the legislation with a veto. In this case, the bill does not become law.

The ability to override a presidential veto serves as a critical check and balance in the US political system, ensuring that neither the executive nor legislative branch holds absolute power. It empowers Congress to push through legislation even in the face of presidential opposition, provided they can secure the required supermajority.

It is worth noting that the dynamics between Congress and the President can influence the likelihood of a veto override. For instance, when there is a unified government, with the President and a majority in Congress belonging to the same political party, the chances of a veto override may be lower. In contrast, divided governments, as suggested by Robert (Bobby) Chesney, Dean of the University of Texas School of Law, where Congress is controlled by the opposition party, may see more frequent veto overrides as Congress exerts its authority.

The president cannot claim Article II authority to override state laws

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes the "supreme Law of the Land" as federal law, including the Constitution and federal statutes enacted by Congress, taking precedence over state laws. While the Supremacy Clause grants Congress the power to override state laws, it does not confer this authority on the President.

Article II of the Constitution outlines the executive powers of the President, including the authority to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and nominate federal judges and other officers, with the advice and consent of the Senate. However, it does not grant the President the inherent authority to override state laws.

In the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court struck down President Truman's attempt to assert emergency Article II authority to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War. The Court ruled that the President's actions were an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's authority, even in times of exigency. This precedent sets a clear precedent that the President cannot claim Article II authority to override state laws.

While the President can influence policy and advocate for certain measures, the power to override state laws rests primarily with Congress. Congress can establish rules and enact directives that take priority over state laws, as long as they are authorized by the Constitution. This power of Congress to preempt state law is a crucial aspect of federalism in the United States, ensuring a balanced distribution of power between the federal government and the states.

Presidential influence on social media can affect compliance with state laws

While the president does not have the power to override state laws, his influence on social media can significantly impact compliance with state laws. This was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when President Donald Trump's Twitter posts against robust social distancing measures, such as shelter-in-place rules, led to increased non-compliance among citizens who supported him. Trump's social media presence also translated into political pressure on GOP officeholders at the state and local levels, who may have otherwise supported stricter social distancing guidelines.

The president's influence on social media platforms can shape public opinion and behaviour, potentially affecting compliance with state laws. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump's tweets may have discouraged people from following state and local social distancing guidelines, prioritizing economic concerns instead. This influence can be particularly strong among citizens who trust and sympathize with the president.

Additionally, the president's social media activity can impact the political landscape at the state and local levels. Trump's opposition to strict social distancing measures likely increased political pressure on Republican officeholders, making it challenging for them to support such measures publicly. This dynamic can create a ripple effect, influencing the decisions and actions of state and local officials, potentially affecting compliance with state laws.

Moreover, the president's influence on social media can extend beyond direct communication with citizens. The White House officials, in conjunction with the Surgeon General's office, have been known to coerce and encourage social media platforms to moderate content according to their preferences. This indirect influence can shape the information citizens receive and engage with, potentially affecting their compliance with state laws.

While the president's social media influence can impact compliance with state laws, it is essential to note that the power to override state laws rests with Congress and the Supreme Court. The president cannot unilaterally override state laws, and any attempt to do so would likely face legal challenges and be struck down as an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's authority, as seen in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case involving President Truman.

The president can't remove a bill by pocket veto if Congress is no longer in session

In the United States, a pocket veto allows the president to effectively veto a bill passed by Congress without actually deploying their veto power. This is achieved by the president neither signing nor returning the bill to Congress within a specified period, typically ten days, excluding Sundays. If Congress is in session during this time, it can circumvent the pocket veto by designating an agent to receive the bill on its behalf. However, if Congress adjourns within the ten-day period, the bill is automatically vetoed, and this veto is absolute. This scenario is known as a pocket veto and was first used by James Madison in 1812.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had an outstanding number of pocket vetoes—during his presidency from 1933 to 1945, he vetoed 635 bills, 263 of which were pocket vetoes. All presidents after him until George W. Bush had pocket vetoes while they were in office. The most after Roosevelt was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had 108. Since the George W. Bush presidency, no president has used the pocket veto.

The pocket veto is a powerful tool for the president to influence legislation without formally exercising their veto power. By delaying action on a bill, the president can prevent it from becoming law, especially if Congress is not in session to override their veto. This tactic underscores the importance of congressional session timing in the legislative process and highlights the strategic considerations that come into play between the executive and legislative branches of government.

While the pocket veto allows the president to remove a bill without directly vetoing it, it is important to note that this power is not without limitations. The president cannot simply ignore a bill and hope to achieve a pocket veto. The ten-day timeframe, as outlined in Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, sets a clear deadline for presidential action. Additionally, Congress can take steps to prevent a pocket veto by remaining in session or designating an agent to receive bills on its behalf.

The president can approve or veto a bill

The President of the United States has the power to approve or veto a bill. A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change to an existing law. It can be petitioned by people or citizen groups who recommend a new or amended law to a member of Congress. Once a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee whose members will research, discuss, and make changes to the bill. The bill is then put before that chamber to be voted on. If the bill passes one body of Congress, it goes to the other body to go through a similar process of research, discussion, changes, and voting. Once both bodies vote to accept a bill, they must work out any differences between the two versions.

Once both chambers of Congress have each agreed to the bill, it is enrolled and then presented to the President. The President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto the bill. If the President approves the bill, they sign it into law. If the President does not approve, they can veto it. If the President chooses to veto a bill, Congress can vote to override that veto, and the bill becomes a law. However, if the President does not sign off on a bill and it remains unsigned when Congress is no longer in session, the bill will be vetoed by default. This action is called a pocket veto, and it cannot be overridden by Congress.

In summary, the President plays a crucial role in the legislative process by having the power to approve or veto bills passed by Congress. While Congress can override a presidential veto, certain conditions, such as a timely response and a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, must be met for a bill to become a law without the President's signature.

Frequently asked questions