More on Strickland’s Illegal Veto at Volokh Blog
Based on my reading of the Ohio Constitution, I am inclined to believe both arguments supporting the majority are correct. These arguments seem to have a firmer grounding in the relevant text than Pfeifer’s alternative read. I also believe that the “Sundays” argument that the majority failed to reach is plausible as well. I can envision many reasons why Sundays would not count in the normal course of business, but would count when the legislature adjourns for the year. Among other things, it would make controversies of the present sort less likely. In the end, I find it quite incongruous that a newly elected governor could veto legislation enacted the prior year that the then-sitting governor intended to let become a law, and it seems to me that the text of the Ohio Constitution is in accord with this view.
Jerid said,
Wrote on August 1, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
Oh boy. Adler. Wooeee, there’s a pillar of non-partisanship for ya’.
Greg Helms said,
Wrote on August 2, 2007 @ 7:09 am
And the other con law professors at Case are? Entin clerked for Ginsburg and doesn’t hide his biases.