• 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
RedAkston

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
54,104
Reaction score
40,045
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
Sure. That's one of the beauties of our system; it is designed to encourage nothing at the federal level so much as inaction.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes. He was elected just as much as the members of Congress were. Why should he not be able to veto legislation if he doesn't like it?
 
The Constitution doesn't say it only has the right to veto if he believes it violates the Constitution, again thats an authority left to the SCOTUS. It simply says he has the power to.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...


I can think of some valid reasons a president might veto a bill.Here is two

1.Too much pork/earmarks and unrelated crap in the bill.
2.The President does not like whats in the bill.


Why have a president if he is supposed to sign yes for every bill that lands on his desk? If a president says he is against pork spending or unrelated crap being put into bills then I do not want him signing yes for those bill. If I voted for a conservative president then I would not want him voting yes for a bill made by a house and senate full of libs and I am sure democrats would not want a liberal president signing a bill made by a house and senate full of conservatives.
 
Last edited:
Shoot, our federal justices barely seem to understand the Constitution, it would be waaaay to much to expect our president to.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ooops. Misread the poll and voted wrong.

The President can (and should be able to) veto a bill because he doesn't like the color of the paper it's printed on...or for any other reason at all.
 
Jetboogieman said:
They seem to understand it when its in your favour...
Click to expand...
That's because I believe in a stricter Constitutional interpretation so, rulings in "my favor" would be easily justified by the Constitution.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, he should be allowed to veto. It's one check on the power of Congress. Additionally, the President has to execute the bills passed by Congress and signed into law by him. If he should think that the law over steps the bounds of what his office is allowed to do, he can veto it.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Economic reasons, for instance, seem particularly compelling right now.
 
The way I look at it is we have the legislative branch and the executive branch being dependent on each other to enact laws. Congress must vote, and the president must sign it into law. It's apart of the checks and balances that we have in our nation. The president has the Constitutional right to veto laws he is against. However he is ultimately accountable to the people on election day and will be replaced if Americans believe that he is not a good president. With every veto comes political praise or repercussions.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. He was elected just as much as the members of Congress were. Why should he not be able to veto legislation if he doesn't like it?
Click to expand...

Yup, it's a judgement call. There are no criteria for a veto specified in the Constitution.
 
X Factor said:
That's because I believe in a stricter Constitutional interpretation so, rulings in "my favor" would be easily justified by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Examples? I'm curious.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Examples? I'm curious.
Click to expand...
Pretty much any ruling in favor of recognizing state's rights as well as the limits on federal power. Anything too that upholds anything plainly stated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms as an example.
 
X Factor said:
Pretty much any ruling in favor of recognizing state's rights as well as the limits on federal power. Anything too that upholds anything plainly stated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms as an example.
Click to expand...

:lol: Oh - I thought you were going to give a serious example.

I guess I took the bait.
 
X Factor said:
What makes you think I'm not serious?
Click to expand...

Oh - you are serious. . . I thought you were making a joke.

Pretty much any ruling in favor of recognizing state's rights as well as the limits on federal power
Click to expand...

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.


Anything too that upholds anything plainly stated in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
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?
Click to expand...

In today's culture, yes. To have a consistent, meaningful reality, principled actions by politicians require the support of the entire body of the American people. Since no politician can depend on the American people to support their demonstrations of principle, no politician can be expected to have strong principles.

In ideal circumstances, no. If the Congress functioned the way it was supposed to, there would be less need for the president to veto a bill for reasons other than constitutional.
 
Last edited:
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 reason is because America's political system is designed around the ideal of temperance and impartial judgment. The right policies are supposed to be "obvious." Partisanship is expected, but to far lesser and more contained degree than in today's culture. Any policy produced by Congress is supposed to be the correct one, and the chief executive is selected for their administrative ability, will power, and force of personality, not for their ability to critique bills.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom