Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:13:50.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concurrent Resolution in Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Howard White
Howard White
Affiliation:
Miami University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much has been said and written in recent years concerning executive usurpation of congressional powers. Little attention seems to have been given to encroachment by Congress on the President's right to give or withhold his approval of “every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment).”

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 1941 , pp. 886 - 889
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 7.

2 Congressional practice, judicially upheld, also exempts from submission for presidential approval joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution. Willaughby, , Constitutional Law, 2d ed., I, p. 593.Google Scholar

3 Report No. 1335, 54th Cong., 2nd Sess., Jan. 26, 1897, pursuant to S. Res., Feb. 20, 1896, asking for an interpretation of the clause in the last paragraph of the River and Harbor Act, July 13, 1892, providing for concurrent resolutions directing the preparation of estimates. See also, Hinds, A. C., Precedents of the House of Representatives, IV, sec. 3483.Google Scholar

4 House Document No. 700, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., sec. 396.

5 Berdahl, C. A., War Powers of the Executive in the United States, Univ. of Illinois, Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol. IX, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 224–227.Google Scholar

6 Veto message, returning H. R. 9783 without approval. Cong. Rec, 66th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 8609 (June 4, 1920).

7 H. R. 14441. Ibid., 8647 (June 5, 1920).

8 Sec. 303 of the act, approved June 10, 1921, provides for removal by joint resolution.

9 Cong. Rec., 67th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 659 (Apr. 26, 1921). Senate Minority Leader Underwood also supported the bill.

10 53 Stat., 562–563.

11 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 767 (Feb. 6, 1941).

12 Cong. Rec., 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2479 (Mar. 8, 1939).

13 Ibid., p. 2478.

14 Cong. Rec., 67th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1855 (May 27, 1921). Obviously he meant that the Congress could not pass the resolution by a simple majority “without the signature of the President.”

15 Cong. Rec., 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2477 (Mar. 8, 1939).

16 Ibid., p. 2479.

17 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 767 (Feb. 6, 1941).

18 S. Joint Res. 138. 53 Stat. 813, approved, June 7, 1939. Reorganization Plans 1 and 2. Ibid., pp. 1423, 1431.

19 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 844 (Feb. 8, 1941).

20 Ibid.

21 There would seem to have been more reason, so far as subject-matter of legislation is concerned, in providing that the determination of the method of apportioning representatives among the states should be by concurrent resolution. But the act to provide for the Fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of representatives in Congress, approved June 18, 1929, in Sec. 22 (b), provides the method which shall be employed “if the Congress … fails to enact a law apportioning Representatives among the several States,” after the President has submitted a statement showing the results of applying various mathematical methods.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.