"I forbid!" (presidential vetoes)

VETO means "I forbid" in Latin, and sums up its purpose quite nicely.

The founders gave the president the right to refuse a bill to become law, as we know--though the veto can be vetoed by 2/3 of both houses--but what was their intent? Did they intend the president to veto something because he "didn't like it" politically?

I have read some of the Federalist Papers on this one, and it seems that the veto was installed to PROTECT THE PRESIDENCY, not to protect his or her policy agenda. Washington knew this, and vetoed bills that he thought were unconstitutional or on shaky legal grounds, not because he didn't like their contents. This was the policy in the early republic, when the executive branch was not as strong as the legislative branch. The founders believed that the congress would be the power center of the federal government. The president was intended to be more than an accessory, of course, but not as "involved" directly in legislation as it is today. the veto was intended to protect his authority from usurpation by Congress: they didn't want Congress passing one law after another turning the President into their b****. If a bill was passed threatening his power/authority, he could veto it and in so doing protect the presidency and maintain the separation of powers.

Unfortunately, no one gets elected president by saying "I'm going to put the country on autopilot and let congress run it for the next four years." People expect the president to solve national problems, not just to carry out congressional policy without question like a glorified notary public. So, the veto shapes legislation. Congress can be forced to change its mind by the president's threatening to veto a bill if it hits his desk with or without certain provisions he would like/not like within it.So the presidential veto is necessary these days.

Presidents might like their veto, but too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Veto everything, and you look like a prick. Veto too little, and you risk damage to the policies you got elected by promising, letting Congress walk all over you.

So where do we draw the line, then? When is it appropriate for a president to veto something? And if he's not going to veto everything, when should he refrain from doing so?

JimHackerMP said:

VETO means "I forbid" in Latin, and sums up its purpose quite nicely.

The founders gave the president the right to refuse a bill to become law, as we know--though the veto can be vetoed by 2/3 of both houses--but what was their intent? Did they intend the president to veto something because he "didn't like it" politically?

I have read some of the Federalist Papers on this one, and it seems that the veto was installed to PROTECT THE PRESIDENCY, not to protect his or her policy agenda. Washington knew this, and vetoed bills that he thought were unconstitutional or on shaky legal grounds, not because he didn't like their contents. This was the policy in the early republic, when the executive branch was not as strong as the legislative branch. The founders believed that the congress would be the power center of the federal government. The president was intended to be more than an accessory, of course, but not as "involved" directly in legislation as it is today. the veto was intended to protect his authority from usurpation by Congress: they didn't want Congress passing one law after another turning the President into their b****. If a bill was passed threatening his power/authority, he could veto it and in so doing protect the presidency and maintain the separation of powers.

Unfortunately, no one gets elected president by saying "I'm going to put the country on autopilot and let congress run it for the next four years." People expect the president to solve national problems, not just to carry out congressional policy without question like a glorified notary public. So, the veto shapes legislation. Congress can be forced to change its mind by the president's threatening to veto a bill if it hits his desk with or without certain provisions he would like/not like within it.So the presidential veto is necessary these days.

Presidents might like their veto, but too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Veto everything, and you look like a prick. Veto too little, and you risk damage to the policies you got elected by promising, letting Congress walk all over you.

So where do we draw the line, then?

Click to expand...

There is no need to draw a line anywhere.

As you noted in your OP, Congress can override a Presidential veto.

If they can't do it, then it's because they don't have enough votes to do so over the objections of the representatives of the people who disagree with the law.

Even so, if the drive is truly popular enough then in a better political clime they can put the issue up again when they know it will not be vetoed.

Captain Adverse said:

There is no need to draw a line anywhere.

As you noted in your OP, Congress can override a Presidential veto.

If they can't do it, then it's because they don't have enough votes to do so over the objections of the representatives of the people who disagree with the law.

Even so, if the drive is truly popular enough then in a better political clime they can put the issue up again when they know it will not be vetoed.

Click to expand...

So you're on the side of "veto anything you want"? (I'm sort of on the fence in case you couldn't tell). Perhaps there ought to be certain legally-stipulated cases where the president may not veto something? Constitutional limits on the veto? I'm not talking about making him a figurehead, however.

JimHackerMP said:

VETO means "I forbid" in Latin, and sums up its purpose quite nicely.

The founders gave the president the right to refuse a bill to become law, as we know--though the veto can be vetoed by 2/3 of both houses--but what was their intent? Did they intend the president to veto something because he "didn't like it" politically?

I have read some of the Federalist Papers on this one, and it seems that the veto was installed to PROTECT THE PRESIDENCY, not to protect his or her policy agenda.

Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. You are right.

The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution had to be accompanied by established norms in order to function. The Constitution did not cover and does not cover everything. This is why they set numerous precedence of unwritten rules. They understood that democracy and the legitimacy of election demanded that toleration had to be respected and that Congressional and Executive powers had to be exercised with restraint. Washington issued only 2 vetoes in eight years and only 8 Executive Orders. And his was a mission of nation origin! Brought forward, Eisenhower publicly disliked the Supreme Court's decision on Brown v. Board of Education, but enforced it.

The power of the veto is accompanied by executive orders, court packing, and pardons. All can undermine the system. Congress has its own set of powers that can undermine the system (filibuster, advice & consent, and impeachment). All of this must be used with restraint and none of this should be merely used as partisan tools against the other.

How Democracy Dies is a wonderful source for this topic.

MSgt said:

No, absolutely not. You are right.

The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution had to be accompanied by established norms in order to function. The Constitution did not cover and does not cover everything. This is why they set numerous precedence of unwritten rules. They understood that democracy and the legitimacy of election demanded that toleration had to be respected and that Congressional and Executive powers had to be exercised with restraint. Washington issued only 2 vetoes in eight years and only 8 Executive Orders. And his was a mission of nation origin! Brought forward, Eisenhower publicly disliked the Supreme Court's decision on Brown v. Board of Education, but enforced it.

The power of the veto is accompanied by executive orders, court packing, and pardons. All can undermine the system. Congress has its own set of powers that can undermine the system (filibuster, advice & consent, and impeachment). All of this must be used with restraint and none of this should be merely used as partisan tools against the other.

How Democracy Dies is a wonderful source for this topic.

Click to expand...

Good points. Washington probably didn't veto too many bills because he didn't want to appear as prejudiced toward one faction or the other that was already developing in American politics. He had to hold the nation together as the constitutional cement was still drying.

JimHackerMP said:

Good points. Washington probably didn't veto too many bills because he didn't want to appear as prejudiced toward one faction or the other that was already developing in American politics. He had to hold the nation together as the constitutional cement was still drying.

Click to expand...

George Washington wrote that he limited his veto power out of "respect for the legislature" and he was reluctant to issue executive orders because it is seen as "encroaching on congressional jurisdiction." Washington, though very popular, even refused to run for a third term. Thomas Jefferson also refused a third term, declaring that "If some termination of the services of the President be not fixed by the Constitution...his office will in fact become for life. I should unwillingly be the person who...should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term..."

It's ironic that another great President, FDR, who wrote 3,000 executive orders, not only triggered the necessity to codify the two term limit (Twenty-Second Amendment in 1951) but also, triggered the need to preserve the Supreme Court's integrity. When he moved to increase the number of judges (his picks) in order to move the New Deal along, both parties (and the media) rejected his court-packing scheme.

Here we see three great American Presidents, all three dedicated to democracy, and how fragile democracy really is. Since Constitutions cannot be all encompassing, norms and unwritten rules must be established and respected. It's like a marriage. We have the marriage document, but both parties must work together if the document is to remain strong. Autocrats all over the world have risen from democracies because their Constitutional norms were shattered (generally through a nurtured hate for the other side). Martin Van Buren, the eight President and founder of the modern Democratic Party, insisted constantly that political rivals need not be enemies. Of course, we still headed into the Civil War two decades later. But, this perspective of political rivals have always served to maintain respect between the parties. We have lost this today.

Article I, section 7 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to veto legislation passed by Congress. This authority is one of the most significant tools the President can employ to prevent the passage of legislation in every part of the country, including my place Abingdon. . Even the threat of a veto can bring about changes in the content of legislation long before the bill is ever presented to the President.
The President of the United States of America has the power of the veto, which means he can stop legislation from becoming law. The president's veto power is just one of the many separations of power, or "checks and balances" of the United States government. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches make up our government's separation of power