Court Ruling Causes Confusion

There was confusion here among Reagan Administration officials and Congressional members concerning the Supreme Court decision striking down the use of the congressional veto, which may have a direct effect on the sale of weapons to Jordan, for example, as the Administration has proposed.

However, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) suggested that the Court’s ruling, while dealing a blow to the one-house veto, does not deal with the two house veto which remains in force and could allow the Congress to veto the sale of advanced weaponry abroad.

The Court ruled by a 7-2 vote last Thursday, that the so called “legislative veto” exceeded constitutional limits designed to preserve the separation of powers. The 50 year-old statute provides that either or both houses, by a simple majority, can block specific actions that the President or a Federal agency takes to carry out authority that Congress had delegated.

According to the ruling by the Court, Congress will be able to disapprove executive branch action only if a bill to that effect passes both houses and receives the President’s signature. If the President vetoes the legislation, Congress may block the President’s action only by overriding his veto by a two thirds vote.

The landmark decision was made by the court in a rather obscure case concerning Jagdish Chadha, a Kenyan holding a British passport, living in Los Angeles and his effort to avoid deportation after his student visa expired. After Chadha succeeded in obtaining a favorable ruling from the Justice Department, that decision was vetoed by one house of Congress.

Chadha then carried his fight to the federal courts, beginning in 1977, and resulted in the high court’s ruling. The decision appears to have had little bearing on Chadha since he married a U.S. citizen in 1980 that would have freed him from the prospect of deportation even if he had lost the case.

The decision meanwhile will undoubtedly change the way future legislation is written. According to some observers, legislation will be “written more tightly” to guard against loss of power by the legislative branch. The legislative veto has been most frequently employed in recent years and more than 60 active laws contain legislative veto provisions.

MILITARY SALES WILL BE AFFECTED

One law which will be directly affected by the court’s decision is the military appropriations authorization act of 1975. Under this legislation, a concurrent resolution of Congress could restrict export of certain military or technological products. All military sales of $25 million or more now must include a presidential notification to the Congress. Congress has 60 days from the date of notification to reject the proposed sale. But it must be rejected by both the Senate and the House.

Precisely how the court’s ruling would affect the Administration’s long standing intention to sell sophisticated weaponry to Jordan remains unclear, AIPAC, the official Israel lobby organization, said that the Court’s ruling “may have implications for the two house veto authorized” by the arms export act. However, AIPAC continued, “the court’s decision did not deal with the two house veto which … remains in full force and effect until a court of competent jurisdiction rules on its validity,”