Presidential Veto: Good or Bad?

[shadow2k]

Which is exactly how it works. The President is elected by the electoral college, which is the voice of the States in the Presidential election.

If you mean any veto should be required to have State approval each time before a President can veto one, that's just not right. He was elected by the States for his term, and shouldn't be hampered with the ebb and flow of opinion flows all throughout his Presidency. The nation has known since early in his Presidency how he felt about stem cells, so this is not a surprise in the least that he did this.

My memory and knowledge of the subject is a bit hazy. But...as far as I can remember, the electoral college is not bound by law to vote along with the popular vote. I think this came up in either 2000 or 2004, I can't remember which. That in fact, the people have no real say in who the president will be, other than the fact that they elected the people who will ultimately decide.

Personally, I think representatives should do a better job of representing the people. If they know that their nation feels a certain way, I think your own personal opinions should hold no weight. You are, after all, there to represent the people. Not your own beliefs.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like vetoes when they're used to stop a proactive action - they're a way of ensuring no action is taken without consensus.

I don't like vetoes where they're used to extend an action, to delay the stopping of a proactive action.

This is just in general, though.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

I say no, the pres should be nonpartisan and help make sure the goverment runs smoothly. Congress should rule the nation, not the pres.

 

[Gogf]

Yes, it is a check on the power of a simple majority in Congress.

 

[Cuivienen]

I say no, the pres should be nonpartisan and help make sure the goverment runs smoothly. Congress should rule the nation, not the pres.

This would be nice, but it's also something you really can't establish laws to create.

Overall, the veto is an okay thing. I don't think it's great, but it's probably better than not having it. (There are other, more serious, problems with presidential authority that are not in the Constitution that have been used of late.)

Frankly, though, I'd prefer a parliamentary system of government to the US system. Maybe it's "greener grass" syndrome, but I don't think the occasional weak government is as big a problem as the abuses the American system is prone to.

 

[Sidhe]

I'd say it obviously depends on the president Didn't Roosevelt try to serve three terms by using his veto power? Or something, I forget?

 

[bhsup]

Not by veto. There was no amendment at the time limiting a President to two terms. That was actually passed after his death because they didn't want to ever see a four term President again.

Roosevelt's greatest scandal, in my opinion, had nothing to do with vetos, but with attempting to pack the Supreme Court with his cronies, increasing it from 9 to 15 members. It went down in flames when the public caught wind of it.

 

[Sidhe]

Not by veto. There was no amendment at the time limiting a President to two terms. That was actually passed after his death because they didn't want to ever see a four term President again.

Roosevelt's greatest scandal, in my opinion, had nothing to do with vetos, but with attempting to pack the Supreme Court with his cronies, increasing it from 9 to 15 members. It went down in flames when the public caught wind of it.

Great thanks for the info. That last bit is pretty diabolical.

I heard it was a convention although not a legal one before his terms, but I may well be wrong.

 

[Elrohir]

My memory and knowledge of the subject is a bit hazy. But...as far as I can remember, the electoral college is not bound by law to vote along with the popular vote. I think this came up in either 2000 or 2004, I can't remember which. That in fact, the people have no real say in who the president will be, other than the fact that they elected the people who will ultimately decide.

Personally, I think representatives should do a better job of representing the people. If they know that their nation feels a certain way, I think your own personal opinions should hold no weight. You are, after all, there to represent the people. Not your own beliefs.

Not quite. Wikipedia has an article on this. Individual electors can, it is true, actually cast their votes for someone else. However, this has never changed an election result, and the "faithless elector" would be subject to state and party punishment. In some states (I know in Minnesota, at least, as it says so in this linked article) the vote is invalidated if it's given to someone else, and would presumably be given to the correct candidate after the faithless elector was booted out.

I actually like the US electoral college, and find the US government in general infinitely superior to the bizarre European style of democracy.

 

[Sidhe]

Comrade Davo would no doubt agree with you as regards Englands method of first past the post, it means you have to overturn the previous governements majority, so if they were voted in by a huge margin, it's very difficult to shift them, for example the Conservatives, and now Labour, both got in on large majorities, that took and will take time to shift, it was however considered to be because of eventual incompetence by previous governments. It seems to favour a two party system, it is almost impossible for the third party to garner enough votes to over turn the majorities. I can't speak for the rest of Europe and I'm not versed enough to make a comparrison with the US system, I like the idea of two terms though, I wonder if Tony will get another term, I suspect he might edge it but it will be very close as the majority lead has slid somewhat.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

If you mean any veto should be required to have State approval each time before a President can veto one, that's just not right. He was elected by the States for his term, and shouldn't be hampered with the ebb and flow of opinion flows all throughout his Presidency. The nation has known since early in his Presidency how he felt about stem cells, so this is not a surprise in the least that he did this.

Of course this is what I mean. I mean, Jesus Christ - you're cool with allowing people like George Bush to make their own decisions like a monarch? People like Geroge Bush shouldn't be making decisions like this. They should require the input of intelligent people.

 

[Cuivienen]

Great thanks for the info. That last bit is pretty diabolical.

I heard it was a convention although not a legal one before his terms, but I may well be wrong.

It was both convention and coincidence. Many early Presidents stepped aside after two terms because Georeg Washington had done it. Later, there were Presidents who would have stayed on for a third term but health or public opinion got in their way. Roosevelt was not, IMO, wrong in seeking a third term.

The Supreme Court packing was ridiculous, of course.

My memory and knowledge of the subject is a bit hazy. But...as far as I can remember, the electoral college is not bound by law to vote along with the popular vote. I think this came up in either 2000 or 2004, I can't remember which. That in fact, the people have no real say in who the president will be, other than the fact that they elected the people who will ultimately decide.

It varies from state-to-state. In many (I think most) states, electors are bound to the popular vote, though the "punishment" in some cases is a small fine. In Maine and Nebraska, two electors are bound to statewide popular vote and one each to each of the electoral districts (they've never been different).

There's also currently a movement to bind the electors to the national popular vote. California and Colorado have passed bills to this effect in half of their legislature and New York, Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana are all considering such bills. Such a binding would come into effect as soon as more than half of the electoral vote is so bound, effectively eliminating the Electoral College without removing it.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Of course this is what I mean. I mean, Jesus Christ - you're cool with allowing people like George Bush to make their own decisions like a monarch? People like Geroge Bush shouldn't be making decisions like this. They should require the input of intelligent people.

Which intelligent people are you referring too?


I think you are using anti-Bush rhetoric instead of logic here. The power of veto goes to the executive branch of the US government just as other powers are delegated to the other branches. The person who wields this power is elected by the people to exercize this power.

 

[Tycoon101]

The president is the people's choice. If he vetos, then he, theoretically, personifies the votes of the populous.

It is excellent that he is finally exercising his presidential powers.

 

[Keshik]

Each branch has checks on the other branch of the Federal government. This is the biggest check the Executive has on the Legislative, and it should not be removed.

Agreeeeed.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Great thanks for the info. That last bit is pretty diabolical.

I heard it was a convention although not a legal one before his terms, but I may well be wrong.

Well the reason was that he needed support for his New Deal to get us out of the Depression. It turns out that FDR was able to get that support anyhow, and got us going again.

 

[greekguy]

without the veto we would basically only have 2 branches of government. veto is a check and balance between congress and the president, it is very important and definitely a good thing.