since congress cant get any bills passsed, bush vetos all
is that all they have can do?
2007-03-12 17:52:15 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, and that is what will be Bush's end result with his stonewalling.
2007-03-12 17:56:45 · answer #1 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No, he cannot veto impeachment, the trouble is in the senate, the democrats cannot get enough votes to stop the Republicans from filibustering every piece of legislation. Remember the repukes whining when the democrats were doing that to the evil judges that Bush was nominating. They was going to use the nuke method. Maybe a good nuke on the right side of the isle would clear up this situation.
2007-03-12 18:05:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with above, congress can overrule vetos, and if the House of representatives impeaches, and and Senate decides to remove the person from office, the president cannot override that
2007-03-12 17:57:07 · answer #3 · answered by queen42anne 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No. Impeachment is a criminal trial of the powers-that-be. In order for the impeachment trial to result in removal from office, there must be a 2/3 vote from Congress in favor of the removal.
Note that an impeachment does not necessarily mean removing the prez from office ... it means to officially bring charges ...
2007-03-12 18:04:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
One of the biggest criticisms by conservatives about Bush is that he hasn't been exercising his veto power often enough, so that negates your central point.
However, while every president has the power to veto bills, no president can veto impeachment proceedings.
2007-03-12 17:59:49 · answer #5 · answered by robot_hooker 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Impeachment is not a bicameral bill that must be presented.
Impeachment is a two-part process inherent to Congress. The indictment is voted upon by the House. If it passes, the case moves forward to trial in the Senate.
2007-03-12 17:58:25 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If that must be carried out, does no longer Clinton have carried out it? Plus, do no longer you will possibly be able to desire to dedicate a criminal offense or a grevious breech of workplace to be impeached. Like say, having $a hundred,000 of bribe money interior the freezer of your workplace . . . with tapes of you accepting the bribe money being recorded by making use of the FBI . . . Oh wait, that DEMOCRAT remains an energetic member of congress and grew to become into in no way chastised by making use of his social gathering. If he's not impeached, somewhat, ought to every physique be?
2016-10-18 06:10:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Bush can veto legislation. But when Congress exercises its powers of impeachment (and some other functions, such as "advice and consent" to appointees to federal offices) the president has no say in the matter. He has no veto authority in such matters.
2007-03-12 17:57:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
if the president vetos any bill...the congress can overide the veto by two-third vote of yeas from the congress...an impeachment trial can't be vetoed by the president unless the suprement court will nullify the grounds of an impeachment trial.
2007-03-12 17:57:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush can't veto an impeachment. He can only pardon others. For example, he will probably pardon "Scooter" Libby.
2007-03-12 17:58:55 · answer #10 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No - articles of impeachment are not legislation and do not need his signature. Our founding fathers weren't stupid enough to give the chief executive the power to reject his own impeachment.
2007-03-12 19:30:58 · answer #11 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋