English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

10 answers

The veto gives the executive a check upon the legislature.

2007-03-27 01:45:04 · answer #1 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 0 0

It is one of the many 'checks and balances' in the government. A president (in the US in this example) is elected by a vote of all the citizens and should (for the most part) represent the opinions and/or desires of the voters. Voters place a certain level of responsiblity on the president to represent their wishes based on all the knowledge he has at his command. The veto option allows the president to 'say no' to a bill that he feels (for what ever reason) would not be in the national interest or at least not the option that the voters would want. Because the president could be more aware of issues than members of congress and/or senate this veto power gives him the ability to avert a larger crisis.

Now... if the veto power is invoked it's not the end of the story for the bill. It will go back for a revote and if the revote garners (I think) 2/3 of the possible votes then the veto is essentially overridden. Thus will of the people (represented by the 2/3 vote) is accomdated even if the president vetos a bill.

Hope this answers the question.

2007-03-27 01:51:09 · answer #2 · answered by wrkey 5 · 0 0

You have to understand the intended roles of the three branches.

The Legislature is to give directions to the Executive, the Executive is to actually get things done, and the Judiciary is the referee to make sure everyone stays within the limits of their power.

The basic purpose of the Veto is a mechanism for the President to tell the Legislature "no", refusing their instructions when they are harmful, impossible, or just plain silly. (You must now cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with...... A Herring!)

The Legislature has the power to override the Veto with a new vote of over 2/3 of the members.

I would say that an override of a Veto is unlikely in any case at all, given that congress is full of both kinds of partisan hacks, unless 2/3ds of congress is ever partisan hacks of the opposite party from the President.

2007-03-27 02:18:39 · answer #3 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 0

In the US, ours is a representative republic. We have a system of checks and balances in place. If Congress passes a law that the President does not like, he can veto it. If he does, the law will not be enacted.
Congress has the power to override the veto, but there must be a 2/3 majority in both Houses to override the veto.

It is a way to prevent bad laws from being passed.

2007-03-27 01:47:51 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1 0

Tom has it right. Plus when the legislation is just
too expensive, or too one-sided, or unfair; the
president can veto it and let them work on making
something more fair before it is passed as law.
What we really need now is "line-item veto" so
the president can veto out just extra pork the
legislatures stick into a bill and then pass the
bill without the pork. Badly needed.

2007-03-27 01:51:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It assures the Nation that irresponsible legislation does not become law without a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate. That assumes that 1/3 of the House and Senate are sane.

2007-03-29 14:01:56 · answer #6 · answered by edward m 4 · 0 0

Presidential check on an overzealous Congress.

Unfortunately, we don't have a line-item veto.

2007-03-27 01:50:11 · answer #7 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0 0

It's part of the system called "checks and balances" so one branch of government doesn't have to much power over another.

2007-03-27 01:56:14 · answer #8 · answered by booboo 7 · 0 0

Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.



Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.

2007-03-27 01:49:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Watch this pork bill.....you'll figure it out.

2007-03-27 02:18:14 · answer #10 · answered by panthrchic 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers