Historically, Presidents can and do write legislation

[ruggerson]

What they cannot do is INTRODUCE it.

But they can WRITE legislation and send it down to the Hill to be introduced by an ally.

They can also write amendments to bills winding their way through Congress and thus influence the final bill that actually lands on their desk.

Anyone who tells you that "Presidents don't write legislation" is not telling you the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._President

"While the President cannot directly introduce legislation, he can play an important role in shaping it, especially if the President's political party has a majority in one or both houses of the Congress. While members of the executive branch are prohibited from simultaneously holding seats in the Congress, they often write legislation and allow a Senator or Representative to introduce it for them. The President can further influence the legislative branch through the constitutionally mandated annual report to Congress, which may be either written or oral, but in modern times is the State of the Union address, which often outlines the President's legislative proposals for the coming year."

[rug]

1. Precisely.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. It's the political equivalent of jerking off

Presidents can suggest legislation, but a member of Congress must introduce it.

Every dipstick who thinks the "Obama should just introduce his own bill" has a weak grasp of the Constitution.

[ruggerson]

5. They can propose comprehensive language

The Obama administration can write a bill or amend a bill and then send it down to Congress to be introduced.

IOW, they can propose a bill or propose changes to an existing one.

As a matter of fact, the administration just did it this week:

"The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify."


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01shield.html?_r=2

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Where it will go to committee...

get revised and amended beyond recognition.

For legislative purposes, it's a waste of time.

[ruggerson]

10. that happens regardless

of whether a President or a Congressperson writes a piece of legislation.

[HughMoran]

12. ...and we can assume that the President will apply the MOST pressure in committee

than previous Presidents because he's a lot smarter/forward looking/a student of history than most previous Presidents.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. But then he/she would have to make a stand

You'd know where the person stood, instead of "knowing" you have an ally.

It would mean being specific, being responsible, standing up and taking a risk.

Leading is different than campaigning.

[QC]

55. BINGO! n/t

[joeycola]

4. I have many say here on DU that the Pres can not write it.

[ruggerson]

6. They are misinforming people n/t

[Igel]

16. I'd look at what they said and how they said it.

I may very well have said that Obama doesn't write legislation.

He can't, at least not any more than I can. He can sign legislation, something that I can't do, at least not with the same effect. Legislation is what's passed, and the originator of the language seldom gets--or wants--credit for it. Credit usually goes not to the aide or lobbyist who wrote it, but the congressfolk who introduced it (or sponsored it). Few things manage to get through either chamber with a single author, in any event, and then they're merged in conference committee so Congress is usually the final collective author of a piece of legislation.

Obama can certainly draft legislative language and recommend amendments, for all the good that would usually do.

In the case of healthcare, he should have had a bill ready to be introduced in both chambers of Congress simultaneously. Of course, that would have been death: Then there'd be arguments about details when he was pushing big picture, and the nitpicking for the next few months would have really been focused, properly, on him. As it is, it was split between him (for the "vision thing") and Congress (for the details), at least when the opponents were clear-thinking: All too often both opponents and proponents confused Congressional drafts with Obama's plans, and they are still rather different critters.

[ProSense]

19. No, the OP is misinformation.

Presidents don't write legislation. It's ludicrous to think they do. It's a complete blurring of the responsibilities of the Executive and Legislative branch. Why do you think there is such a problem with signing statements?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. You are completely incorrect

>Presidents don't write legislation.

False. As to whether the executive *personally* writes legislation depends on the person, of course, but the executive branch routinely writes legislation to be proposed by a congress-person.


>It's ludicrous to think they do.

Ludicrous, perhaps. But correct.


>It's a complete blurring of the responsibilities of the Executive and Legislative branch.

Bzzzzzttttt. Wrong. A President cannot VOTE on any legislation and cannot propose legislation formally on the floor, but the executive branch routinely sends stuff to congress. Congress usually re-writes it, but that is happenstance, not a requirement.

For instance, Congress could have passed Paulson's Treasury memo to congress laying out the bailout. They didn't because it was woefully incomplete, but they could have. That is THEIR prerogative--to pass whatever they want.

Your sense of the separation of powers might lead you personally to think it indecorous for the executive to forward proposed legislation to congress, but it doesn't blur anything.

Only congress can PASS IT. But anyone--lobbyist, constituent or even President-- can send legislation to their congress-person and say, "Hey, please propose this bill." The congress-person does have to, but can.


>Why do you think there is such a problem with signing statements?

Uh, because in their most extreme form they are rewriting legislation congress PASSED. If the president writes a bill and congress passes it and then the president issues a sweeping signing statement then the executive has erred by disregarding something passed by congress... even if the president wrote it in the first place.

The President cannot shit-can passed laws. He can veto them, but cannot de facto rewrite them after they become law.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the President or Britany Spears or anyone else can petition congress to take up a bill they wrote.

And congress has the prerogative to disregard any such suggested legislation.

[grantcart]

26. Correct the Kennedy administration wrote the Civil Rights act of 1964 for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


Many times the Executive branch is really the only branch that can write the legislation because there are so many technicalities to it.

An environmental law, for example not only needs input from the EPA but also the DOD. Military bases are even more restricted than other areas on maintain environmental law and need to be proactive on every issue. Camp Pendleton employes hundreds of biologists to maintain compliance.

Many laws that have multiple jurisdictional questions require that they be coordinated by the executive branch before being introduced.

[ProSense]

29. No, Kennedy sent a proposal

Origins

John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 12, 1963,<1> in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19. Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. But it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.<2>

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee greatly strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Conservative Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

Because of Smith's stalling of the bill in the Rules Committee, Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Committee. Only if a majority of members signed the discharge petition would the bill move directly to the House floor without consideration by Smith's committee. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, as even many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself were cautious about violating House procedure with the discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

No matter how you slice it, President sent broad proposals, and its up to Congress to shape the legislation taking laws into consideration.

No one is saying that Presidents don't influence bills or make the provisions they will and will not accept, sign or veto, know to Congress.

The notion that Presidents routinely write laws is false.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. You are being a weirdo -- this is not even tricky stuff

The fact that Congress generally amends legislation proposed by the executive is not a constitutional or institutional requirement.

I know people in the executive branch who write legislation all day long. As Grantcart explained above, it is typical for the executive to craft legislation.

Thought experiment: Was it within congress' power to take whatever Kennedy gave them and say, "We like it. Let's pass it as a law"?

Of course they could have. Congress can pass whatever they want! They monkeyed with it because they WANTED TO, not because they HAD TO.

And if Obama sent a health-care plan to congress it would almost certainly be altered, in practice. But there is no requirement that it be altered.

I will not say you are lying because you may actually believe what you are saying. But you are repeating a counter-factual statement over and over, for whatever purpose.

[ProSense]

37. You are being idiotic with this statement

Thought experiment: Was it within congress' power to take whatever Kennedy gave them and say, "We like it. Let's pass it as a law"?

Of course they could have. Congress can pass whatever they want! They monkeyed with it because they WANTED TO, not because they HAD TO.

They did it because it's their Constitutional responsibility. No where in the Constitution is the legislative process decribed as "monkeyed with it."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. WTF?

You just suggested that Congress is Constitutionally required to amend draft legislation proposed by the executive.

That's bizarre.

Can they change one comma into a period to make it legit, or do they have to add at least five new words? What is the Constitutional requirement for this Congressional editing responsibility?

You are a smart person. Your posts show that. But you are in a weird place in this and really ought to concede that you overstated something you hadn't thought through and retire from the field of battle.

[ProSense]

39. FAIL

You just suggested that Congress is Constitutionally required to amend draft legislation proposed by the executive.

Someone in Congress first has to accept any proposal from the executive. They are not obligated to do so.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. Yes, as I and others have stated over and over and over.

And you, master of basic civics, five minutes ago dismissed the same idea that you now trumpet as probative when Ruggerson said it.

Yes, only a congressperson can formally place a bill before congress. Duh!

You will notice that the word "WRITE" does not appear in that sentence. (Nor does draft, craft, etc.)

You are incontrovertibly wrong.

[grantcart]

40. You have cognative dissonance on this that is rather humorous

Your citation states


He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19.


He sent a bill and congress ammended it. I have observed the writing of legislation intimately. Very little legislation is written by individual congressman. It is either written by the executive branch, or by lawyers employed either by the caucuses or by the committees.


Here is the US Treasury explictly outlining the process for tax legislation - it is written by the executive branch and sent to Congress AS A FORMAL SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/writing.shtml

EXECUTIVE BRANCH PREPARATION

Most recommendations for new tax legislation come from the President. Many people are involved in shaping these recommendations. Months of preparation may go into new proposed legislation before the President makes his recommendations to Congress. The Treasury Department has primary responsibility for drafting the President's tax recommendations. Advice and assistance also come from other government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or people in business or professional fields.


Once drafted, the Treasury Department sends the legislation to the White House for review by the President and his advisors. The President may direct the Treasury Department to make changes to the legislation or to remove or add some provisions. Then, the Treasury Department makes the changes and provides the President with any additional information he requests. Next, the President sends a message to the Congress as he formally submits the proposed legislation.

Obviously if he can do it with a tax bill he can do it for DADT.

The decision not to to is purely strategic not procedural.

[ProSense]

43. I don't think so. The rest

The Congress takes steps known as the legislative process to pass a Federal law. This process begins when a Senator or Representative prepares a proposed law, called a "bill." It ends when Congress approves the bill and sends it to the President. When the President signs the bill, it then becomes law.

The Constitution says that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" and that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes." Presidents can, and frequently do, recommend changes to current tax laws, but only Congress can make the changes.


<...>

The President may send tax proposals to Congress any time. In practice, however, the President will propose only one major tax bill each year. He often mentions his tax proposals in his annual State of the Union address. In addition, the President will also discuss any proposed tax legislation in the Economic Report of the President, which goes to the Congress every January. Usually, the President sends proposed tax legislation to Congress during the first few months of the year.

CONGRESSIONAL TAX LEGISLATION

Under the United States Constitution, all legislation concerning taxes must "originate" in the House of Representatives. The House usually must take action on the legislation before the Senate can begin its consideration.

[grantcart]

45. The OP is about "writing" legislation not who votes on it

Technically the word should have been "drafting".


Tons and tons of legislation is "drafted" by the executive branch, your source said as much when you said that Kennedy sent a "bill".


Executive branch can and does "draft" legislation and send it to Congress.


Congress can ignore it, vote on it, ammend it or kill it.


If the President was so inclined he could draft legislation on DADT and send it to them for consideration.


He hasn't done so because of strategic considerations, probably because of not wanting to divert attention from the Health Care debate to ANY controversial question until a bill is passed.

[ProSense]

47. Once any Presidential proposal is accepted by Congress it goes

through significant overhaul in all the relevant committees. That is not a process limited to voting.

[grantcart]

49. ITS NOT A PROPOSAL IT IS FORMAL SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Once drafted, the Treasury Department sends the legislation to the White House for review by the President and his advisors. The President may direct the Treasury Department to make changes to the legislation or to remove or add some provisions. Then, the Treasury Department makes the changes and provides the President with any additional information he requests. Next, the President sends a message to the Congress as he formally submits the proposed legislation.

[ProSense]

52. Why are you typing in caps?

See below.

[grantcart]

56. hoping that it would improve your comprehension

and as to your reply


Most of US tax legislation comes from the President as a formal submission.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. Once again you are claiming a constitutional requirement that Congress alter the text of something

"it goes through significant overhaul in all the relevant committees"

That is something that usually happens, not a Constitutional requirement. No committee or congress-person is required to change a draft bill.

Nobody has suggested that Congress is required to pass bills proposed by the President without changes or at all. Congress can wipe their collective ass with it if that's what they want to do.

If Congress were required to pass all laws proposed by the president without changes would indeed be deeply unconstitutional, which is why it's so cool that nobody said anything like that.

Also, notice that you have completely given up on your original sentiment that the President cannot propose legislation and switched to the pedestrian statement that such proposed legislation is generally altered in practice.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. PS: Your emphasis >>> "He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19"

The word "bill" has a meaning.

It does not mean, "A proposal of some sort that is not a proposed bill."

It means proposed legislation.

As in, "How a bill becomes a law."

[quiller4]

76. he wikipedia article is in error. Although the Kennedy Admin

sent key working to congressional allies, it did not substantially write the legislation. Check any authoritative biography and it will tell you.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. Anybody can write legislation

It just has to be introduced by a senator or congressman. People are not kidding when they say that lobbyists literally write legislation.

[ShortnFiery]

7. This legislation will turn out to be a big wet kiss to Wall Street ...

Then President Obama will INCREASE the troop strength in Afghanistan and Columbia: Big Wet Kisses to The Pentagon and Wall Street.

This is NOT change - it's neo-liberalism - quest for corporate global domination.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. You make me wish Obama would go to war with Iran...

Because every time you bitch, I smile.

So I am starting to hope Pres. Obama does more shit to piss you off. I fuckin' love it! :)

[PBS Poll-435]

14. .

:rofl::yourock:

[ShortnFiery]

66. ...

sycophant?

[PBS Poll-435]

71. To DI?

:rofl:

[grantcart]

27. If he simply pronounces the word it gets a reaction

I wish that he would simply make a small comment on the rain levels of Iran every day.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Are you following me around or just tag-teaming?

You do know that's against the rules that you seemingly cherish?

[ShortnFiery]

64. You love the thought of innocents being killed?

That says a lot of unsavory stuff about you.

For shame. :(

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

67. Yeah, but the downside is that we'll see more of those idiotic playing cards.

To be honest though, I kind of want to play that game. I've never been double-plus good at anything.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. But all the Clintonians in Obama's administration didn't want to "make the same mistakes"

Even though Obama isn't Clinton and the situation is about fifty times as dire as it was in the nineties, plus the majorities did not exist, plus the Republicans were nowhere near as marginalized. But because of the Clinton history, it was decided that we had to start from scratch without the White House presenting any proposed legislation.

Obama had a detailed and specific healthcare proposal that he ran on. It involved: National Health exchanges like the FEHB uses, it promoted drug negotiation by the government, it advocated for a strong public option as its major components.

The moment President Obama was elected, it was like his personal healthcare program that he RAN on was consigned to the dumpster. With great hoopla we get the gigantic White House symposium on health care with "stakeholders" (with a few single payers added grudgingly at the last minute). I actually READ the transcripts of that event (mind numbingly dull) and you can find references scattered throughout where people are asking for some guidance from the White House. The conference ends with everyone agreeing that health care is shit and it needs to be reformed - exactly the same knowledge everyone had walking in the door.

Then we come to the House Party era where the White House tells us all to have parties and tell each other health care horror stories. They DO NOT offer anything to guide the discussion except for Obama's 3 Guiding Principles which are something like Healthcare needs to be: accessible, affordable and portable. Again, yes, we KNOW that!! We knew that walking in the door. What actually happened during the House Party era is that a LOT of support for single payer came out. I'm sure everyone holding the house parties transmitted their report to the White House where they used them to line the canary cages.

Then we get to the real deal where the committees in the House and Senate actually get to work on their bills. This is where we get to our Back Room deal part of the process where the White House worked through the Finance Committee and Max Baucus to make those nice deals with Pharma about a paltry 80 billion over 10 years lets them off the hook for any further negotiation.

Then we get to the Town Hall/ Tea Party part of the agenda. That was all really good fun, wasn't it. And through all this we get the conflicting messages from the White House, do they or do they not want a Public Option, something that has not been satisfactorily resolved to this day.

Then we get to where we are today.

Could the process have gone WORSE, if the White House had presented model legislation? I frankly don't see how it could have been worse and possibly it would have been more focused, more directed, with more substantive discussion all the way through if we had started the process with some specifics.

So this has been a gigantic clusterf!@# from the get go if you ask me.

My lingering questions are :

***Did President Obama personally believe what he was presenting as a candidate or was it just a devised as a nice vote-getter?

***Does President Obama have any real desire to drive through meaningful reform? If so, why did he start about 100 miles backwards from the starting line from his positions as a candidate?

***Does the fact that a major adviser and one who was supposedly actually running the Health Care conference was Zeke Emanuel who is on the record for abolishing Medicare and replacing it with a voucher system for private insurers make me have queasy feelings?

[HughMoran]

11. It's as if you think Obama will play no role in the final bill nor has applied pressure behind the

scenes.

It must be nice to be omnipotent. :P

[ruggerson]

15. The OP wasn't really in response to the healthcare debate

I actually don't think his strategy so far has been terribly flawed. I want to see what comes out of reconciliation and the role he plays in shaping the final bill.

[Orsino]

17. Congresscritters do.

They shouldn't need a president to do it for them, but President Obama's special magic might penetrate Congress' fail armor, a bit.

They would have to fuck with it, of course. Little, if any, of the White House's words would survive the first committee's gropings.

[ProSense]

18. It's not legislation, it's a proposal.

Who wrote this: "they often write legislation and allow a Senator or Representative to introduce it for them."

Where are examples of Presidents writing legislation? Even when Clinton took the extraordinary step of writing a health care bill, the problem he had was that Congress was reluctant to accept it. They did and tried to shape it after the fact, and that created a huge amount of friction.

The President can enter into agreements which must be ratified by Congress. They can also shape policy based on exisiting laws.

It's completely incorrect to say that Presidents often write legislation.

[ruggerson]

22. Just today the NYT reports that Obama's administration rewrote part of the "media shield" bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01shield.html?_r=2

And all proposed legislation, whether introduced by the President or a Congressmember, undergoes scrutiny and revision by various committees before a final bill is ready to be voted on.

The point is that those who maintain the President cannot write or propose legislation are either ignorant of the process or being disingenuous or both.

[ProSense]

23. That's not writing legislation.

According to the reports, this is a court case and the administration is making suggestions that conflict with the bill the Senate is working on. They are trying to prevent a legal precedent from trumping the law.

A key Senate sponsor of a bill to protect reporters' sources in federal court said Thursday the Obama administration has unexpectedly tried to weaken the protections.

Supporters of the so-called media shield bill must now decide whether to proceed without counting on administration support.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said several weeks ago that he expected the administration would agree to a bill he could support, especially in cases involving leaks of national security information. He now sharply criticizes the Democratic administration.

"The administration's opposition to the core of this bill came as a complete surprise and doesn't show much concern for compromise. This turns the bill's near-certain passage into an uphill fight," Schumer said.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said negotiations are continuing, and President Barack Obama supports a strong media shield law.

link

From the NYT, they sent proposed changes:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

The bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”

But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The two Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said on Wednesday that they were disappointed by the administration’s position.

Mr. Specter called the proposed changes “totally unacceptable,” saying they would gut meaningful judicial review. And in a statement, Mr. Schumer said: “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it hard to pass this legislation.”

Presidents down write legislation.

They can influence, as in health care.

[ruggerson]

28. those who maintain the President cannot write or propose legislation are either

ignorant of the process or being disingenuous or both.

[ProSense]

30. No you're being disingenuous because you will see this as validating Reid's silly move.

He needs to move on repealing both DOMA and DADT, there are bills in both Houses addressing this.

[ruggerson]

33. This is broader than just DOMA and DADT

this is about basic US civics.

Presidents can write and propose legislation (and have done so on many occasions) and send it down to the Hill to be introduced by a congressional ally.

Period.

[ProSense]

34. "send it down to the Hill to be introduced by a congressional ally"

Basic civics: Laws are written in and passed by Congress. Period.

[ruggerson]

36. Basic civics: Presidents can write bills and send them down to the Hill

to be introduced by a Congressperson.

[Phx_Dem]

20. RIght. And, historically, the majority leader doesn't claim to support something

and then go beggin the President to write the bill for him.

[Phx_Dem]

21. dupe

[BklnDem75]

25. Yawn...

This is just another attempted deflection to aim anger at Obama because Reid won't do his job. It's too... too... onetrickponyish. :thumbsdown:

[hileeopnyn8d]

31. You noticed that too? nt

[ProSense]

32. Exactly.

Suddenly, Reid writes a letter and he's no longer the worse majority leader ever.

:rofl:

[grantcart]

41. Here is an example of the process as explained by the executive branch itself

In this case it is the treasury department, it could be DOD, EPA or any other executive branch department.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/writing.shtml

EXECUTIVE BRANCH PREPARATION

Most recommendations for new tax legislation come from the President. Many people are involved in shaping these recommendations. Months of preparation may go into new proposed legislation before the President makes his recommendations to Congress. The Treasury Department has primary responsibility for drafting the President's tax recommendations. Advice and assistance also come from other government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or people in business or professional fields.


Once drafted, the Treasury Department sends the legislation to the White House for review by the President and his advisors. The President may direct the Treasury Department to make changes to the legislation or to remove or add some provisions. Then, the Treasury Department makes the changes and provides the President with any additional information he requests. Next, the President sends a message to the Congress as he formally submits the proposed legislation.

[ProSense]

44. And here is the rest of the text, that proves the OP entirely wrong

The Congress takes steps known as the legislative process to pass a Federal law. This process begins when a Senator or Representative prepares a proposed law, called a "bill." It ends when Congress approves the bill and sends it to the President. When the President signs the bill, it then becomes law.

The Constitution says that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" and that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes." Presidents can, and frequently do, recommend changes to current tax laws, but only Congress can make the changes.


<...>

The President may send tax proposals to Congress any time. In practice, however, the President will propose only one major tax bill each year. He often mentions his tax proposals in his annual State of the Union address. In addition, the President will also discuss any proposed tax legislation in the Economic Report of the President, which goes to the Congress every January. Usually, the President sends proposed tax legislation to Congress during the first few months of the year.

CONGRESSIONAL TAX LEGISLATION

Under the United States Constitution, all legislation concerning taxes must "originate" in the House of Representatives. The House usually must take action on the legislation before the Senate can begin its consideration.

[grantcart]

48. THE PRESIDENT FORMALLY SUBMITS THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

massive amounts of legislation is written by the executive branch.

Its not a secret or a rumor its actually part of the formal process

again, talking about where the initial legislation is DRAFTED OR WRITTEN ONLY, NOT ON WHO AMMENDS OR VOTES ON IT


http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/writing.shtml


Once drafted, the Treasury Department sends the legislation to the White House for review by the President and his advisors. The President may direct the Treasury Department to make changes to the legislation or to remove or add some provisions. Then, the Treasury Department makes the changes and provides the President with any additional information he requests. Next, the President sends a message to the Congress as he formally submits the proposed legislation.

[ProSense]

50. "massive amounts of legislation is written by the executive branch." No.

From your link:

The President may send tax proposals to Congress any time. In practice, however, the President will propose only one major tax bill each year.

Presidents send a limited number of proposals to Congress.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

53. This is turning into, "I was five miles away at the time of the shooting, plus it was self defense."

1) Ruggerson is a disinformation agent for saying Presidents can propose legislation. The idea of a President proposing legislation is ludicrous.

2) Plus, Presidents only propose legislation a few times a year.

[ruggerson]

57. That will go over her head

;)

[ProSense]

59. Yeah, you're too smart for your own good. n/t

[ruggerson]

60. Why don't you just admit the OP is correct and move on

it would take far less effort.

[ProSense]

61. Why don't you

learn something?

[grantcart]

54. lol

1) The fact that you agree on the fact that the President does formally submits legislation means that you now disagree with all of your previous posts that it is only a "proposal"

2) That it is reconciled into a single bill is beside the point.

As the source that we are both quoting now sets forth

Most recommendations for new tax legislation come from the President.

So now we can agree that 1) The President can formally submit legislation to Congress 2) Most tax legislation comes from the President.

All of this supports AND PROVES CONCLUSIVELY the contention of the OP.

[ProSense]

58. Here's a lesson for you

HOW OUR LAWS ARE MADE

[rug]

62. Did you work on this too?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7266360872513258185&ei=AfXHSsfMF5ucrQK766zPBw&q=how+a+bill+schoolhouse+rock&hl=en#

[grantcart]

68. Having actually worked in the legislature at the state level and been

apart of actually writing legislation you may be surprised that everyone on this thread is quite well informed about how legislation is made into law.

Unfortunately the OP is not about making law but drafting proposed legislation.


Here is the operative statement of the OP

What they cannot do is INTRODUCE it.

But they can WRITE legislation and send it down to the Hill to be introduced by an ally.

They can also write amendments to bills winding their way through Congress and thus influence the final bill that actually lands on their desk.

Anyone who tells you that "Presidents don't write legislation" is not telling you the truth.

The OP is a very narrow question.

In this thread authoritative sources, including that of the Executive Branch, have confirmed that the OP is correct in this very narrow assertion that the President can and does draft legislation to be sent to the Legislative Branch.

That you continue to argue (when up thread you have already conceded that the President sends the draft of the tax legislation to Congress) on something that is completely off point to the OP is odd.

No one is talking about how draft legislation moves to become a bill. We had a conversation about whether the President can draft legislation. That conversation has been answered conclusively.

By the way after Congress makes the bill into a law the Executive enforces the law and the Judiciary interprets the law, also tomorrow several NFL games will be played and one will be played on Monday: but none of this has anything to do with the OP and neither does your reply above.

[Divine Discontent]

63. Thank you for re-reminding everyone of this simple fact! Good job.

[slipslidingaway]

69. knr nt

[TheKentuckian]

70. Even Obama has. He sent the assholes regulation legislation forever ago

and it has been buried in neverland since. Krugman cries bitter tears of hot glass and Ratigan chews off the heads of kitteh angels daily.

[Honeycombe8]

72. I've never heard anyone say the W.H. "can't" write legisl. It's that they usu. don't.

And as we saw by the complete and total failure of the Clinton health care reform bill, it usually isn't a good idea to get pidgeon holed into one plan.

[johnaries]

73. And it worked so well for Hillary's HCR bill in 93.

:sarcasm:

[grantcart]

74. no it didn't but to argue that the President cannot do so is bizzare.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

75. Yes - The need to be "correct" despite overwhelming evidence.

Oh well, that's what makes these forums so entertaining sometimes - the human pretzel making that goes on.

[ruggerson]

82. ain't it the truth

n/t

[johnaries]

84. Wait a minute, that word salad actually made sense to you?!?!?!

Quote: "no it didn't but to argue that the President cannot do so is bizzare."

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

77. Yep. Just like the failed Clinton attempt at healthcare reform...

I really don't understand why people are so eager to repeat that mistake.

Oh, wait. Yes I do.

[ruggerson]

78. This thread was not about healthcare reform

so apparently you really DON'T understand what you're talking about.

[treestar]

79. If you were President would you want to do that?

Inevitably there would have to be compromises, so there would be no way you could win. It's would be considered a weakness to make any deviation and the media would go on endlessly.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

80. Well, every President we have ever had saw it as worthwhile

[freddie mertz]

81. This is a pointless diversion at best.

So what if a president or administration can't technically write legislation?

They still do it, then send it to a congress person or group and they introduce it.

Happens all the time.

Even if they do not write it, they can draw up guidelines, which actually seems to have happened early on in this healthcare thingie.

The issue is not who writes the legislation, it is the quality of leadership that i (not, I think) being exercised in this case.

That remains a matter of opinion, and opinions may differ.

We are not in a dictatorship yet.