ABSTRACT
This chapter demonstrates that the congressional veto is consistent with the constitutional separation of powers and, moreover, that it is an excellent example of adaptation to changing circumstances within our constitutional framework. It examines three major constitutional arguments against the congressional veto: the first was based on the presentation clause, the second on bicameralism, and the third on executive power and its relation to administration. The chapter argues that the very legitimate question raised by the presentation clause cannot be answered definitively with reference to the language of the Constitution and the limited debate on its meaning in the Federal Convention. Madison was not thinking about a mechanism to control presidential government when he made his remarks about the purpose of the clause. He was thinking of a direct form of legislative avoidance of the presidential veto, and at a time when overbearing legislatures was one of his major concerns.
