The Department has previously recognized its responsibility to enforce statutes. even while disputing their constitutionality in court. In the recent controversy over the constitutionality of the legislative veto. for example. the executive branch had always respected the exercise of a legislative veto. notwithstanding the Justice Departments view that legislative vetoes were unconstitutional. In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha. 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983). the Solicitor General explicitly stated that[Ulntil and unless the court of appeals entered a decision holding the statute unconstitutional. INS intended to enforce the law. The Solicitor General explained that the alternative approach of "ignoring a resolution of disapproval passed by one House of Congress and to cancel deportation proceedings * * * would be inconsistent with the accepted view that constitutional questions arising in the administration of a statute should. if possible. be resolved by the courts. not by the administrative agency itself." The Solicitor General concluded that the enforcement of the statute once judicial proceedings were initiated. "was not merely permissible under the circumstances. but was a responsible and wholly appropriate response to the situation." This issue. I might add. transcends both House and party lines. Committees in both the House and Senate.
Keywords matched
Naturalization Immigration deportation