ws.
If none of this seems to work there is always the prospect of amending the Constitution, which is a long, tortuous, and difficult process. The result may not be what was intended. Consider for example Prohibition. Its aim was to prevent people from making (some) personal decisions in regard to drinking alcohol. In truth, drinking only became illegal.
The legal questions in short dealt with the required use of a bicameral process in enacting legislation under Article I, section 7. The Constitution (see #3 below) also requires that both the amendment and repeal of statutes conform with these Article I requirements.
3. Specific Arguments/Majority and Dissenting
The majority opinion was handed down on February 12, 1998 by Thomas F. Hogan United States District Judge. The majority opinions were voiced along very specific lines; to wit, the Constitution carefully describes certain formal procedures that must be observed in the enactment of laws. The Line Item Veto Act impermissibly attempts to alter these constitutional requirements through mere legislative action. Because the Act violates Article I's "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure," (Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951).
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution describes dual
requirements for the enactment of statutes: bicameral passage and presentment to the President.(See. U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 7, cl.
2 ). At the heart of the notion of bicameralism is the requirement that any bill must be passed by both Houses of Congress in exactly the same form.
The Constitution also requires that both the amendment and repeal of statutes conform with these Article I requirements. It makes only four narrow exceptions to this single mechanism by which the provisions of a law may be canceled. See U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 2, cl. 6; art. I, sec. 3, cl. 5; art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2; art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2. Congress may not add to this exclusive list...