One man using a veto to overrule the wishes of the elected majority smells more like an authoritarian state than a democratic one. However Dubbya will have used his power of veto only twice after this war-funding bill, FAR less than the average US dictator/president. Here are some numbers from a BBC article:
Highest number exercised:
F D Roosevelt (1933-45) - 372
G Cleveland (1885-89 & 1893-97) - 346
H S Truman (1945-53) - 180
DD Eisenhower (1953-61) - 73
Most recent presidents:
Ronald Reagan (1981-89) - 39
George Bush (1989-93) - 29
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - 36
George W Bush (2001-) - 1
(Figures for regular vetoes only; pocket vetoes are not included)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6597545.stm
A quote from 'political analyst Larry Sabato':
"Other presidents have used the veto hundreds of times. This is one of the least impressive aspects of the Bush presidency - it suggests weakness and it has been a major mistake by Bush. His failure to veto bills during the periods of Republican-controlled Congress meant he allowed spending to get completely out of hand. They would have benefited from discipline. That is what the veto is - it's executive discipline applied to the Congress."
Does the American nation measure the strength of its Presidents by how many times they overrule the elected majority? How is this a promotion of democracy?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeThe American president doesn't "overrule" the majority with a veto. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. He too is elected by the majority. The veto is an important part if the checks and balances. Its a vital one for keeping congress from getting too far out of hand. And well, we've seen them do exactly that under the guaranteed Bush non-veto.
One man using a veto to overrule the wishes of the elected majority smells more like an authoritarian state than a democratic one. However Dubbya will have used his power of veto only twice after this war-funding bill, FAR less than the average US dictator/president. Here are some numbers from a BBC article:
Highest number exercised:
F D Roosevelt (1 ...[text shortened]... by how many times they overrule the elected majority? How is this a promotion of democracy?
Originally posted by MerkThe American president doesn't "overrule" the majority with a veto. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.
The American president doesn't "overrule" the majority with a veto. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. He too is elected by the majority. The veto is an important part if the checks and balances. Its a vital one for keeping congress from getting too far out of hand. And well, we've seen them do exactly that under the guaranteed Bush non-veto.
It's my understanding that the majority passed a bill on tying funding to troop withdrawal and Bush is going to stop that with his veto, therefore overruling them. Have I got that wrong?
Its a vital one for keeping congress from getting too far out of hand.
Isn't it more likely that a single person can get too far out of hand (e.g. a President using vetoes) rather than a large body of people?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeA majority of congress passed the bill. That much is correct. However, the president is also elected via majority vote so it can also be seen as a majority veto. If you look at polling numbers, that is in fact exactly what it is. The majority are against a set timetable for withdrawal. And, nobody has done any polling on this (that I've seen) but if you asked the people if funding bills should have pork attached, the majority would say no to that also.
[b]The American president doesn't "overrule" the majority with a veto. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.
It's my understanding that the majority passed a bill on tying funding to troop withdrawal and Bush is going to stop that with his veto, therefore overruling them. Have I got that wrong?
Its a vital one for keeping congres ...[text shortened]... et too far out of hand (e.g. a President using vetoes) rather than a large body of people?
For your second point, yes and no. Yes it would be easier if it wasn't for all the political pressure on the executive. No as in, not really in application. The spotlight and pressure is far more intense on the executive. Our congress gets not nearly enough heat so they get away with way more than the executive ever could. As an example, congressional approval numbers are as low or lower than Bush' approval numbers, but nobody knows that because its not on the news and in the papers all the time. Also, its tough for the veto to get too far out of hand because congress can override it.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI believe Americans credit their presidents by their stupidity.
One man using a veto to overrule the wishes of the elected majority smells more like an authoritarian state than a democratic one. However Dubbya will have used his power of veto only twice after this war-funding bill, FAR less than the average US dictator/president. Here are some numbers from a BBC article:
Highest number exercised:
F D Roosevelt (1 ...[text shortened]... by how many times they overrule the elected majority? How is this a promotion of democracy?
That's why Raygun was/is so popular.
Most democracies have a mechanism to override the executive
organ's veto, which converts the veto itself in a healthy balance of
the administrative, much more hands-on nature of the administrative,
unipersonal organ, on one hand, and on the other hand the collegial,
deliberative, and by definition slower legislative organ.
Checks and balances, that's the name of the game.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI think the real question here is why is congress playing games with Americas tax money, they know that the President was going to veto it and they would not get the 2/3 vote it will take to over run Bush so it is a big waste of time and money.
One man using a veto to overrule the wishes of the elected majority smells more like an authoritarian state than a democratic one. However Dubbya will have used his power of veto only twice after this war-funding bill, FAR less than the average US dictator/president. Here are some numbers from a BBC article:
Highest number exercised:
F D Roosevelt (1 ...[text shortened]... by how many times they overrule the elected majority? How is this a promotion of democracy?
IE
On the other hand, Mr Sabato believes Mr Bush's threat to veto the war funding bill played into the Democrats' hands because it allowed them to propose legislation that they knew could never be passed but which was popular with supporters
They are just going to waste time and money much needed to support our troops on this trivial bulls@#t. Way to go congress. And a great way to support our troops over seas.
Thanks
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeYou're right -- if Bush the Dictator weren't such a piker, he'd nationalize the press, suspend the Congress and the Constitution and declare martial law. He should take a page from the books of more successful dictators like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Vladimir Putin.
One man using a veto to overrule the wishes of the elected majority smells more like an authoritarian state than a democratic one. However Dubbya will have used his power of veto only twice after this war-funding bill, FAR less than the average US dictator/president. Here are some numbers from a BBC article:
Highest number exercised:
F D Roosevelt (1 ...[text shortened]... by how many times they overrule the elected majority? How is this a promotion of democracy?
Originally posted by torch71Should congress always do as the President indicates then? Or should the veto be scrapped?
I think the real question here is why is congress playing games with Americas tax money, they know that the President was going to veto it and they would not get the 2/3 vote it will take to over run Bush so it is a big waste of time and money.
IE
On the other hand, Mr Sabato believes Mr Bush's threat to veto the war funding bill played into the Democr ...[text shortened]... trivial bulls@#t. Way to go congress. And a great way to support our troops over seas.
Thanks
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeIn my opinion no they shouldn't do everything as the Pres indicates, But they shouldn't waste valuable resources like they are, just to try and make Bush look bad.He is not able to get re-elected so stop wasting time and money and get the troops what they need.
Should congress always do as the President indicates then? Or should the veto be scrapped?