What are you thoughts on the presidential veto(For the U.S.)?

[Vesayen]

I hold the view that some of our very early presidents held, but has since fallen out of favor.

The real purpose of the veto is not clear in the constitution, it is not like the second amendment which says in the amendment, why that line is there. The veto is created in article 1 section 7 of the constitution.

Section. 7.
Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

My thoughts on the presidential veto are this:

The purpose of the veto is to allow the president to stop congress from pointing a bill which is a really, really bad idea, for whatever that reason may be. It should never, ever be used to simply stop the “opposition” from getting their political way. It should only be used to stop a truly terrible idea. It should be used rarely and sparingly and should only be used when the proposed legislation is a truly terrible idea. Unless the issue is very complex and technical, the proposed legislation should be so awful that the common man on the street shakes his head on disgust at a veto worthy bill.

Regardless of however the supreme court feels this week, I also think the line item veto is incredibly unconstitutional.

[SlowwHand]

While you're busy making decisions on what you think is proper, study up on riders.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
While you're busy making decisions on what you think is proper, study up on riders.

..or study up on Art II, § 2, which gives the President two options: approve the bill; not approve the bill. That's it. Period. Nothin' more. QED Nuff said. Finito.

[SlowwHand]

Right, which is the whole purpose of the line item veto.
If the bill is good in it's strictest sense, strike the rider.

1) Start withdrawing troops from Iraq
2) NATO takes turn in handling
3) I bang your sister 3 times a week
4) Restrain from unnecessary involvement for a while


You gonna pass it like that?

[Zkribbler]

I didn't write the Constitution. I just follow it.

If folks don't like what is says, then amend it.

[SlowwHand]

Ok, we need to amend the constitution.

[Zkribbler]

You'll probably get a lot of supported.

[SlowwHand]

Where so we sign? Do we carry signs to get people to sign? We don't just sign a sign, do we? That might be good. "Look at all the people that signed this sign. Come on! Sign up."

[DinoDoc]

Other than the fact that it should be line item, I don't really have any strong feelings about it.

[Addled Platypus]

Reagan was the king of Veto's

[TheStinger]

Not having a line veto is a good idea as it should stop people sneaking stuff onto otherwise good bills which then would have to be vetoed as a whole.

Of course in practice the whole thing might get passed.

the veto in the UK exists but hasn't been used for 300 years. Other than that the system is quite similar to ours (which was probably intentional)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Not having a line veto is a good idea as it should stop people sneaking stuff onto otherwise good bills which then would have to be vetoed as a whole.

How would a line item veto not stop that?

[snoopy369]

Stinger, the problem is the reverse is actually true.

IE, if a budget bill is passed that says:
1. Pay our employees.
2. Pay for public services.
3. Pay our debts.
4. Give Nebraska $60m in random crap they don't need.
5. Give Alasaka $500m in random crap they REALLY don't need.
...
The president can't realistically veto the budget, because it would be a very bad idea to stop doing 1-3. We had issues like that in the mid-clinton years where the new Republican house kept passing budgets Clinton couldn't sign, so the government shut down for months. Unless it's a huge issue that the president feels he needs to make a stand on (like Clinton did), he's not going to veto the budget just because of a bunch of pork (random crap nobody needs just to make the people happy that their rep is getting them money); so a ton of pork makes it into there (it's usually how it gets passed anyway, buying people off with pork).

Line-item cuts down on some of that pork, in theory (mostly the opposite party of the president pork, but forutantely usually the house is the opposite party from the president, or at least more often than not, so that often is much of the pork). We'll see if that actually happens...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Where so we sign? Do we carry signs to get people to sign? We don't just sign a sign, do we? That might be good. "Look at all the people that signed this sign. Come on! Sign up."

Start with your Congressional Representative.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How would a line item veto not stop that?

My contention relies on responsible politicians.

Which I can see is flawed