How a bill really becomes a law

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   INS v. Chadha (1983), in our words: A law let one house of Congress, by its own vote, cancel a decision of the Attorney General to let a person stay in the country. The House voted to cancel one decision. The Court held, 7 to 2, that this broke Article I, Section 7: an action that changes people's legal rights must pass both houses and be presented to the President. Article I, Section 7 (quoted in part): "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. …"

2. 1.

   Ren reads cards CH and AV. Why does Chadha's reasoning follow from Article I, Section 7?

   • Section 7 says just the Senate may cancel decisions of the executive branch
   • Section 7 forbids the House from voting on immigration, which the Senate decides
   • A one-house action that changes legal rights skips the other house and presentment
   • Section 7 applies solely to bills about money, so other actions need no presentment

3. Use this

   INS v. Chadha (1983), in our words: A law let one house of Congress, by its own vote, cancel a decision of the Attorney General to let a person stay in the country. The House voted to cancel one decision. The Court held, 7 to 2, that this broke Article I, Section 7: an action that changes people's legal rights must pass both houses and be presented to the President. Two proposals (made-up) to let Congress cancel an agency rule. Proposal P: either house may cancel a rule by a simple majority of its own members. Proposal Q: both houses pass a joint resolution canceling the rule, and the President may sign or veto it.

4. 2.

   Jun reads cards CH and CP. Which proposal fits Chadha?

   • P, since an agency rule is not a law and so needs no presentment
   • Both, since each is a vote of Congress and so follows the Constitution
   • Q; P repeats the one-house veto, and Q follows both houses and presentment
   • Neither, since Congress may not review agency actions

5. Use this

   INS v. Chadha (1983), in our words: A law let one house of Congress, by its own vote, cancel a decision of the Attorney General to let a person stay in the country. The House voted to cancel one decision. The Court held, 7 to 2, that this broke Article I, Section 7: an action that changes people's legal rights must pass both houses and be presented to the President. Two proposals (made-up) to let Congress cancel an agency rule. Proposal P: either house may cancel a rule by a simple majority of its own members. Proposal Q: both houses pass a joint resolution canceling the rule, and the President may sign or veto it. Article I, Section 7 (quoted in part): "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. …"

6. 3.

   Kira reads cards CH, CP and AV. If the President vetoes Q, what shift in power results?

   • Power shifts to Congress, since Congress can invariably reach two thirds when it wants
   • Cancelling the rule needs two thirds of each house, shifting power toward the executive
   • Power shifts to the courts, since presentment lets judges veto the resolution
   • No shift occurs, since a veto of a resolution is a formality that Congress ignores

7. Use this

   Clinton v. City of New York (1998), in our words: The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 let the President, after signing a spending or tax bill, cancel certain items in it. The President canceled items, and the Court held, 6 to 3, that this broke Article I, Section 7. The Constitution lets the President sign or veto a whole bill, but not change its text after signing. Article I, Section 7 (quoted in part): "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. …"

8. 4.

   Luz reads cards CL and AV. What did the Line Item Veto Act let the President do that Article I does not?

   • Veto a whole bill and send it back with objections to the originating house
   • Cancel parts of a bill after signing it, changing the text that Congress passed
   • Return a bill with objections, which Article I does not allow under any condition
   • Sign a bill without a second vote by Congress and without presentment

9. Use this

   Clinton v. City of New York (1998), in our words: The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 let the President, after signing a spending or tax bill, cancel certain items in it. The President canceled items, and the Court held, 6 to 3, that this broke Article I, Section 7. The Constitution lets the President sign or veto a whole bill, but not change its text after signing. Article I, Section 7 (quoted in part): "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. …" Case CS (made-up): The Congress passes the Cobalt Spending Act, which includes a grant for a bridge. After signing it, the President cancels the grant under the Act and signs nothing else.

10. 5.

    Milo reads cards CL, AV and CS. What is the difference between a veto and the cancellation in case CS?

    • The cancellation was a veto of one item, so Congress could override it by two thirds of each house
    • A veto applies solely to spending bills, and the cancellation applies to tax bills
    • A veto covers the whole bill and can be overridden; the cancellation edited a signed law
    • Both let the President write the final text of a law, without Congress voting on it

11. Use this

    Clinton v. City of New York (1998), in our words: The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 let the President, after signing a spending or tax bill, cancel certain items in it. The President canceled items, and the Court held, 6 to 3, that this broke Article I, Section 7. The Constitution lets the President sign or veto a whole bill, but not change its text after signing. Argument (made-up): "The Line Item Veto Act helps Congress by cutting waste, so it should be upheld."

12. 6.

    Noah reads card CL and argument C6. How does the Court's reasoning treat the argument that the Act is useful?

    • The argument is irrelevant because the Court just reviews bills about spending
    • Usefulness decides; a helpful procedure is allowed even if Article I does not name it
    • Usefulness does not decide; Article I's procedure for making law must still be followed
    • Congress may delegate any power if it passes the Act by two thirds of each house

13. Senate rule (our words)

    Debate in the Senate can continue until three fifths of all senators, 60 of 100, vote for cloture to end it. Before 1975, cloture needed two thirds of the senators present and voting. After cloture ends debate, a bill still needs a simple majority to pass.

14. 7.

    Pia reads card SR. How did the move from two thirds to 60 votes change how many senators can block cloture?

    • Blocking became easier, since 60 is a smaller number than 67
    • Blocking now takes 50 senators, half of the Senate, under the 60-vote rule
    • Blocking now takes 41 senators, up from 34, so blocking became harder
    • Nothing changed, since both rules are supermajorities that need many votes

15. Article I, Section 7 (quoted in part)

    "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. …"

16. 8.

    Zee reads Article I. With 435 House members voting, what is the smallest group that can sustain a veto?

    • 146 members, since 290 yes votes are needed and 146 no votes leave only 289
    • 145 members, exactly one third, since one third is automatically enough to block
    • 217 members, one fewer than a majority, so the veto stands solely with 217
    • 218 members, a majority of the House, since a majority decides each vote

17. Case C10 (made-up)

    In the Senate, 57 senators support a bill and 43 oppose it. The opponents begin a long debate. Cloture needs three fifths of all 100 senators. Senate rule (our words): Debate in the Senate can continue until three fifths of all senators, 60 of 100, vote for cloture to end it. Before 1975, cloture needed two thirds of the senators present and voting. After cloture ends debate, a bill still needs a simple majority to pass.

18. 9.

    Ari reads cards C10 and SR. 57 senators support a bill. What happens, and what would change it?

    • The bill fails for good, since the cloture vote came up short
    • The bill goes to a conference committee, which ends the debate
    • The bill passes, since 57 is a majority of the Senate
    • Debate continues; three more votes for cloture would reach 60

19. Claim (made-up)

    "Overriding a veto is nearly impossible, so the War Powers Resolution of 1973 cannot have become law over a presidential veto." Article I, Section 7 (quoted in part): "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. …"

20. 10.

    Bo reads claim C12 and Article I. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 became law over a veto. What does that show about the claim?

    • The President signs after an override, so the claim about vetoes is unaffected
    • Override takes just a majority, since the Resolution passed by a majority first
    • Override can happen; it takes two thirds of each house, so it needs broad agreement
    • Vetoes do not apply to resolutions, so the claim has no connection to the Resolution