Should the president have the option to veto a bill?

Question

So many people want to see a change in course in the war, because clearly the current course is not working. However, Bush's stubborness and obsession to achieve a successful mission is putting the lives of thousands of American soldiers at risk. I think that this behavior is a good enough reason to consider taking away the president's ability to veto a bill. I think it is pretty obvious that the officials in favor of this latest bill are much more intelligent in this matter and it is time that Bush start taking other people's advice into consideration.

Answer 1

I offer you a car to buy, but put in the stipulation that it is going to be taxed at an increasing rate by an additional 1% every month.

You refuse.

I do it again, but insist that you have to carry a passenger of my choosing every day.

You refuse.

Are you wrong to do so?

The President has a responsibility to all of us, not just the troops.

He refused the first bill because Congress thought they were being clever by adding all sorts of other money-eating projects unrelated to the subject of the bill so that either he "refuses the bill and thus is bad", or accepts it and they get a windfall of a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the troops (its a despicable practice).

Then they do the same thing, but tack on a time table for leaving Iraq.

He's making it hard to fund the troops? He should just eat whatever they mix in there or HE gets blamed?

Who do you think really believes that? How unjustly do you plan to treat him? Are you going to insist it be reinstated if there is a Republican Congress and a Democrat President?

How silly. Let's take the claws out of our President, totally change the balance of power between the three parts of our government, just to make a political point for our party (I'm a democrat).

I don't want a toothless Democrat in the White House. It's even a sillier consideration when you realize he only has a couple of years left before a new President comes to office.

Answer 2

It's part of the constitution. Republicans AND Democrats have used the veto. Do you want to change the Constitution so that only Democrats can veto? Start a petition. It's your right (assuming you are a US Citizen)

It's not pretty obvious to me that the defeatists are "much more intelligent".

What is patently obvious, however, is that when you have troops in harms way, you don't give aid and comfort to the enemy by telling them when you are pulling out.

Like it or not, we have to get to a point where the Iraqi's can defend themselves before pulling out, and Pelosi and friends have absolutely no idea, nor the intelligence to determine when that might be.

Answer 3

Sso you are with the Democrats and wish to weaken the balance of power, and you a not a free thinking person,because your question is how the media wishes the masses to think.
Bush doesn't have to veto a bill and the Democrats do not have to send it to him.
They could just tie the purse strings shut and starve the military, forcing the withdraw
However they are addicted to their power, and fear the backlash of the American public.
President Bush Plans to stay the course.

Answer 4

i became into decrease than the impression that by using the time you attain the 8th grade you have already discovered how the government of america applications. the folk elected the president and the Congress in 2008. After the election, fifty 8 senators have been Democrats and 256 contributors of the homestead of Representatives have been Democrats. this supplies the Democrats administration of Congress, which became into the choose of the folk in 2008. considering 2 self reliant senators are vote casting with the Democrats interior the Senate, this supplies them a filibuster-information majority and the Republicans can not end them from doing in spite of that's they like to do. so a great way as senators being bribed is in touch, negotiations are continuously area of the equation in any legislations. in case you opt for to call it bribery, that's your perogative, even with the undeniable fact that that's not bribery decrease than the regulation and consequently, there is not something you're able to do approximately it different than convey your displeasure interior the subsequent election or write letters and make telephone calls on your legislators. so a great way as who has examine the invoice in that's entirety, i won't say, yet i could wager they are few and lots between (at the same time with you) and are in keeping with summaries pronounced interior the media as their source of counsel and that i don't see the concern with that, surprisingly if that's the print media. so a great way as why some human beings could criticize warring parties of the invoice by using labeling them as selfish, the reason being that 40 seven million individuals (and turning out to be) haven't any medical well being coverage and consequently, people who oppose extending well being care to those human beings could desire to be selfish as they care not something for the plight of others. finally, as to why some human beings criticize warring parties of the invoice as ignorant, that's possibly through fact warring parties of the invoice have disseminated incorrect information and used concern approaches (such through fact the "loss of life Panel" fantasy) to attack the invoice and that's completely authentic attempting to think of that individuals who could fall for such approaches are ignorant.

Answer 5

It would violate the Constitutional system of "checks and balances" that prevent a tyranny of one or 3000. Congress might be right this time around but they can be wrong the next and the next and nothing could stand in their way.

Answer 6

I agree, after all what right does one man have to stop something, when the people of the country are calling for a withdraw of troops, and congress are passing bills. Why does it get squashed from this one person, with his own personal agenda.

Answer 7

Yes, Unless you Hate Freedom.
Go to North Korea. See how your ideas would work.

Answer 8

You must be about 15 years old, right?

Answer 9

Yes, its his Constitutional right.