How can a president make or change a law without congress approval?

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
I keep hearing that the president is going to change social security. I always thought that the legislative branch of government was responsible for making laws. I believe the president can make a proposal, but a member of congress must bring it up in congress. Can anyone shed any light on this subject?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DZip
I keep hearing that the president is going to change social security. I always thought that the legislative branch of government was responsible for making laws. I believe the president can make a proposal, but a member of congress must bring it up in congress. Can anyone shed any light on this subject?



That is correct. There are executive orders which muddy the waters a bit, but social security reform is not going to happen via executive order.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,325
126
The members in congress who are in the same political party are generally pawns* to whatever the president wants. Thus the president is already about halfway to getting whatever he wants. Threats are often enough to get the remaining votes needed. In most cases, presidents get their way fairly often.

Of course, if the president proposes something wildly unpopular, he will likely not get it.



* Going against the president in your party is basically political suicide. Doing so will usually end your career.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
yup a president in a certain party and a matching congress will pretty much do whatever the president wants. and this admin is rabidly enforcing the towing of party line.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
The members in congress who are in the same political party are generally pawns* to whatever the president wants. Thus the president is already about halfway to getting whatever he wants. Threats are often enough to get the remaining votes needed. In most cases, presidents get their way fairly often.

Of course, if the president proposes something wildly unpopular, he will likely not get it.



* Going against the president in your party is basically political suicide. Doing so will usually end your career.

Uh yeah, threats, uh-huh. More like promises. It goes like this:

President: You know, Mr. Democrat-A, I'd sure like to get this law passed!

Democrat-A: While I am fundamentally opposed to this law, I'd vote for it if you gave X dollars to my home state for pork projects!

President: Well you just write me up a bill and by-gum, I'll sign it!

It's not threats, it's unprincipled politicians on both sides of the aisle who are the problem.

Jason
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
As the executive branch they can also just disregard a law by not enforcing it. This is particularly effective in against environmental laws.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Remember the legal opinions GWB got from the Justice Dept. that advised him that as CIC, he could ignore treaties? Treaties that were approved by the Senate. That he was not obligated to follow both international and U.S. law (approved by both houses of Congress) in the treatment of prisioners. How government lawyers argued that the courts could not order the rights of prisoners to be enforced because they had no rights? Maybe he intends to get a new opinion about his authority on SS.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,325
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Uh yeah, threats, uh-huh. More like promises. It goes like this:

President: You know, Mr. Democrat-A, I'd sure like to get this law passed!

Democrat-A: While I am fundamentally opposed to this law, I'd vote for it if you gave X dollars to my home state for pork projects!

President: Well you just write me up a bill and by-gum, I'll sign it!
Threats as in, you do this otherwise your X dollars for home state pork projects will be cut. It works both ways.
It's not threats, it's unprincipled politicians on both sides of the aisle who are the problem.
Then why did you bother to make the thread political by singling out one party and not the other. Democrats overall spend less on pork than republicans. So it seems like you made an odd choice for an example, when you didn't need to make it political to begin with.

 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
Why is it that so many people can't just answer a question without it becoming a partisan position? I don't care which party is what, I am asking about how our government works regarding law making. Apparently people are more concerned about what party is blamed or congratulated than the outcome and how it effects what happens to the people of this country.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: DZip
Why is it that so many people can't just answer a question without it becoming a partisan position? I don't care which party is what, I am asking about how our government works regarding law making. Apparently people are more concerned about what party is blamed or congratulated than the outcome and how it effects what happens to the people of this country.

Nonpartisan? Never! ;)

Ok, seriously, the question has been answered. It is, as you are aware, Congress makes the laws (and the money!). However, in a situation where the President and the majority of Congress are in the same party, most things that come out of the White House (ie: the President) will be passed by Congress.

So a President can propose a budget, but he can't actually do anymore than that. (well, there's lobbying members of Congress to get it passed or waiving appointed positions around)