• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a valid reason for a President to veto a bill...

Is there a valid reason for a President to veto a bill (read below)


  • Total voters
    33
Is there a valid reason for a President to veto a bill other than on Constitutional grounds?

If a bill makes it through both houses of Congress (never mind that the states have no voice - that's an entirely different problem) and makes it the desk of the President, should he be able to veto it if there is not a Constitutional issue with the bill?

The President can veto any bill that comes across his desk for any reason that he feels like. Even if it's just because he doesn't feel like it atm. And yes he most certainly should be able to. Despite your false assumption that the states don't have a say, each one of those senators represent 1 specific state and was elected by one specific state. And that state is the one that they came from personally. No one else voted them in. Just the people that are in thier respective states. The President however was elected by the People across every single state. Not just one. Because of this he represents the will of the people of the Country. Not just the states. Because of this he should have the right to veto one or a few states wants.
 
I want to thank everyone for their input. I had this argument with a friend of mine last week and thought I'd post a poll here to see what everyone thought. It's good to know that we can find common ground despite our political differences most of the time.

The best common ground that everyone has is that we breath air and bleed red. Beyond that everything else is debateable. ;)
 
Oh - you are serious. . . I thought you were making a joke.

The fact of the matter is that the federal powers in the constitution are limited and states do have considerably more rights because they are granted privileges and rights not otherwise designated to the federal government. We are the 'united states' after all - for a reason.

This is just the way the Constitution was written - this is how the pie was sliced and it's done for good reason.
It's not really the SCOTUS's fault that they have to take what is already in the Constitution and spell it out again for the President and Congress to take note because they don't care.

Don't hate the Scotus for the faults of the Bureaucracies, Legislature and the Executive branches - the Scotus often is the only sanity and control we have on the Hill.
I don't disagree with any of this, AS. The problem is that the federal judiciary does not always uphold these principals. Instead, what happens is that an activist judge will reach a result first then stretch the Constitution to fit it. The Constitution really only speaks to government power - or really more the limits of government, yet certain S.Ct. rulings apply to private citizens as well. You know how they justify this? Through the Commerce Clause. It's basically legislating from the bench. Now, there's no question that some of these rulings have yielded positive results, but that doesn't change the fundamental dishonesty in using the power of S.Ct. to accomplish things that really should be left up to the legislative branch.
 
Last edited:
It is the President's prerogative to employ a veto with any bill he feels should not become law. If it is a bill that Congress feels a requirement to pass, then they will override the veto with a 2/3 majority in both chamber. This is one of the major checks and balances that the President and Congress have for each other.

Pretty much sums up my take on it. The President is not the Supreme Court. He can and should act for political reasons and therefore he can veto any bill he choses and Congress is then free to override him. Failing that, they can attempt to come to some sort of compromise solution or table it for the time being.

Presidential veto is one of the major checks against the power of Congress. It helps keep the legislative branch from running wild.
 
I want to thank everyone for their input. I had this argument with a friend of mine last week and thought I'd post a poll here to see what everyone thought. It's good to know that we can find common ground despite our political differences most of the time.

Yes, I agree. It's nice to have a thread where no one disagrees with me.:peace

Keep up the good work.
 
Back
Top Bottom