WILLOW, NS hits the nail on the head here. Via veto, the executive does not trump the legislature, rather he demands that a 2/3 majority of the legislature approve the bill. If I were President (God help us), I would veto EVERY bill as a matter of course -- something 2/3 of the legislature can't agree on can't be in the best interests of the people.

I am also for the line-item veto, which goes a long way to get rid of pork and does not really offend the constitution (as some would claim).

Quote:

Now, why would this be important. Considder slavery, which was once, regretably, part of America. The whole notion should have been struck down. But, barring that the President should have vetoed it .... or been declared unConstitutional by the Court. Of course they did some major denial/justification to claim that slaves were not human to get around that "All men are created equal." thing. This was more to get the South to ratify the new gubmint for they would not abandon their ways and the flegling nation could not hope to stand against Europe if they were divided. Anyway this is just one example were the Will of the People is not a GoodThing<sup>TM</sup>.

Slavery was done away with in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the so-called Civil War Amendments. Amending the Constitution is yet another example of where a 2/3 majority is required. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, but the key here is that the power was used by one <u>group representing the majority (the people)</u> against the decisions made by the minority (the nobility).

The case where the US president carries an executive power of veto over the decisions of the majority is therefore a *corruption* of this basic idea of democracy - since it gives precedence of power to the minority over the majority.

It was the installation of the executive powers of veto that allowed Hitler to abort the assemblies attempts to remove him and curb his power in the 1930's and thus provided him with the means to become a dictator.
It was the power of veto that allowed Mugabe to wrestle control away from Parliament and provide himself with the means to install his own dictatorship.

The best 'veto' system occurs where two elected bodies sit - both with differing powers and electoral boundaries to offset eachother. No single person or small group of officials should bear such a power by themselves.

In the US system, Senate and Congress are enough of a counterbalance without any need for the US president to bear such dangerous powers.


It's a bit more complicated than that. The EU (and its parliament) was created by treaty - but it is not a true parliament in the sense that it could only be considered as a 'lower house' with limited powers.

The EU treaty does *not* for example give the EU parliament powers to raise taxes or set tax rates without seeking further authorisation from all EU states.
Effectively then, *all* members have 'veto' rights, since their refusal to grant further powers to the EU parliament and its executive could derail any proposed policy - and yes, that even includes small countries like portugal (which a few years ago derailed a proposal by the UK to lower taxes to the UK rates...)

Other issues, for example agricultural subsidies *do not* fall under the remit of the European parliament but are set by treaty between the member states. Consequently a refusal by one government to change the terms of a previously agreed treaty does not consitute a 'veto' in the parliamentary sense of the usage of that word..

[ 06-30-2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I have already read the term "line-item veto" a couple of times in US publications, but I don't know what it stands for. Would you, please, be so kind to explain the concept to me? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-30-2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Ramon de Ramon y Ramon ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ramon de Ramon y Ramon:

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb]I have already read the term "line-item veto" a couple of times in US publications, but I don't know what it stands for. Would you, please, be so kind to explain the concept to me? [img]smile.gif[/img]

It is the power to veto a bill in part, instead of the whole.

example:

1. Proposed Bill
2. legal mumbo-jumbo
   <LI><s>vetoed part of bill</s>
   <LI>more legal mumbo-jumbo

Thanks, NS! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, I can definitely see how that would very significantly increase the president's actual veto power. After all, it is a common practice to package controversial proposals with very popular ones into one bill and force the institution holding the power to block it to have to decide between letting the whole legislation pass or taking the criticism for blocking the popular part.

Hmm so if the US president uses hi veto to turn down a proposed bill, the bill needs a 2/3 majority instead of the usual 51 %? Did I get that right? Is this also the case in the EU? I'm not sure you know that Timber, but I noticed that Ramon³ had entered the thread. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, Willow, you got it right. The legislature has the ultimate law-making power (mmm.... mostly, let's forget executive orders for the moment). With the consent of the executive, a simple majority is fine. Without the consent of the executive (i.e. veto), you need a super majority.

Side note: The pocket veto: Congress gets a bill to the president, and there is a certain amount of time he has to sign it or veto it. If there is less time until the end of the Congressional session that the time provided for signing, the President may simply do nothing, and let the legislative session end without the bill being passed one way or another. This effectively kills it until next session, and is known as the pocket veto.

Unfortunately, I can't help you with the EU. Ramonster?

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Timber. Thanks a bunch. [img]smile.gif[/img] I now understand how a veto can be a part of a democratic process. [img]smile.gif[/img]

OK Ramon, or any other European for that matter, how about the veto in the EU?

For the question above now an example of how lunatics use their right to veto.
Our Austrian far-right Freedom Party for a long time threatened to veto the EU expansion to the east if our neighbour countries did not close down their nuclear power plants.
Austria does not produce nuclear power and Austrians are (rightfully) afraid of fallouts near the border.
However this would be a classic abuse of veto:
"If you don't do as we like we will punish you."
It would be right if the EU decided to give financial aid to these power plants. Then it would be logical of a country which is afraid of them to veto so they do not get built. But it is illogical to veto their invitation to the EU when this may be the only chance to close down the already active plants when nuclear power is once abolished EU-wide.