The question of this case concerns the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2). This statute states that if a deportable alien would face extreme hardship if deported, the attorney general is able to suspend the alien’s deportation. However, either house of congress has the ability to veto the attorney general’s decision to deport the alien. The question of the case is whether congress should have the power to reverse the attorney generals decision, because doing so is in violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Articles I, II, and III of the constitution give the powers to each branch of government, and keep the powers separated. In addition, Article 1 Section 7 Clause 3 states that every vote that congress makes must go to the president for approval, which the vote in this case, did not.
At issue was whether the veto by congress of the attorney general’s ruling is unconstitutional. Justice Rehnquist believed that congress would not have given the attorney general the power to suspend deportation of an alien unless they were given veto privileges. Therefore, Rehnquist believed that you could not take congress’s veto power away without taking away the attorney generals powers as well. Justice Powell believes that congress is overstepping its bounds, and that because of Article 1 section 9 clause 3, congress should not be allowed to rule over individual trials, like what they did with Chadha. This case is unique in that the INS, who Chadha was litigating against, actually agreed with Chadha, and wanted to see the law ruled unconstitutional. This is probably because everyone wants more power, and without congress’s veto power, the INS has more power.
Whether it is not separation of powers to veto the rule
The justices held that the process taken by the congress was unconstitutional based on the constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Specifically, article 1 section 7 clause 3. Because the INS actually agreed with Chadha, both sides actually “won”. The vote was 6 to 3 to rule § 244(c)(2) unconstitutional. More important than Chadha being allowed to stay in the United States of America, the process known as the legislative veto, was abolished.
The reasons for ruling § 244(c)(2) unconstitutional are as follows. It gives congress too much power, and they are overstepping their bounds by vetoing an action by the executive branch. In addition, Article 1 Section 7 clause 3 states that the president must approve of all votes by congress. In addition, it violates the anti-aggrandizement principle, which states that congress cannot make any laws that best suite themselves.
The reasons for ruling § 244(c)(2) constitutional are as follows. Legislative vetoes are common, and very important for many processes, including the War Powers Act. In addition, it is likely that congress would not have given the attorney general the power to suspend deportation of an alien unless they were given veto privileges.
The effect of this case was the partial abolishment of the legislative veto. While the veto is still used in some manners, the manner from this case is no longer allowed. Separation of powers is now thought of as more strictly enforced.
One dissenting opinion was that congress would not have given the attorney general the power to suspend deportation of an alien unless they were given veto privileges. However, when congress gave themselves more power, many would say that they are breaking the anti-aggrandizement principle. Therefore, when they gave themselves that power, they were acting unconstitutionally so it does not matter that they otherwise would not have given power to the attorney general. While legislative vetoes are important, as some dissenters say, and too important to get rid of, there is still the question of whether they are unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution did not want one branch getting too much power, and by congress legislating that all decisions made by the attorney general have to be passed through congress as well, does seem like a little power more than just checks and balances.
