I'm a bit confused...what happened? Do the Democrats have any authority in this?

Question

I admit I do not know much about politics. But I know that after elections, people were excited because they said the democrats won the house. I tend to stay out of things when it's about politics not because I don't care but just because a lot of the times I feel like the things that are going on are over my head, and I don't always understand the political jargon. But everyone was so excited last year & said the democrats would bring us out of the war. I was happy just because I thought maybe now things would settle down a bit. Then I read things this week about President Bush&his veto& wonder what exactly can the democrats do? If the President doesn't agree with something then all he has to do is veto. I'm not trying to insult or offend anyone that is a democrat. However, I truly don't understand how the system works. Was everyone excited for nothing?

Answer 1

Simply put -- there are still too many Republicans in Congress. The Democrats couldn’t override Bush’s veto because they didn’t have enough votes.

Answer 2

The excitement was a bit of an overreaction in this case, but just because something the President vetoes will likely not be overridden by Congress...yet. The presidential veto is one of the checks-and-balances of our system of government -- basically intended to override a legislative branch (Congress) that is pushing something the executive branch (President) disagrees with without having enough support. A bill can pass in Congress with a simple majority (more than 50%), but in order to override a presidential veto, they need a 2/3 majority (about 67%). So Congress does still have authority in this matter, but only if they can come to some sort of compromise where 2/3 of the Congress can agree on something even if the President still doesn't agree with it.
The entire point is to keep one branch from running roughshod over the others -- up until the November 2006 elections, the Executive branch was pretty much allowed to do whatever it wanted due to a Legislative branch that wouldn't put up much fight (the Dems couldn't get a simple majority before that election). Now that the Democrats control Congress, we should start seeing the system of checks and balances working again, which IS something to be excited about.

Answer 3

Let me help you on this one:

The President, as Commander and Chief of the military, is the only one who can order troops in and out of battle. This is the way it should be, whether a Democrat or Republican. The nature of war is such that decisions need to be made, and there isn't time for 535 Congressmen and Congresswomen to run 535 different plans for a war. Congress has not say in this matter.

However, what Congress can do is not approve funds for the war. It's going to hard for any President to fight a war if there is no money approriated for weapons, supplies, soldiers' pay, etc. This is the "checks and balances" system in action.

Now, Pelosi and company want to stop the war, but the only way they can do it is to not approve the funding for the war, or put in timetables for withdrawl. However, there are two problems with that: (1) Bush can veto the bill-which he did- and the Democrats do not have a 2/3 majority to override the veto. (2) Bush can then appeal to the American people that "The Democrats are taking the bullets and armor away from the troops and putting them in danger". Even the most anti-war Democrat does not want to endanger US troops. It's political suicide.

So Pelosi and company do not have a lot of leverage in this matter, in spite of their speeches. It's Bush's call.

Answer 4

The Gov't is a system of checks and balances. No one branch has final say over anything. The President's veto can be over-rule, but it would take 2/3 of congress voting yes (more then it takes to pass a law to the Pres.) to get it done. The sticky thing with this bill the Pres. just veto'd is that while it set a date for troop withdrawl (end to the war) it also provided the $$$ to fund the war that the army so desperately needs. The democrats can either take away the funding for the war (bad idea, troops with no resources) or try something else. The Pres. does not have absolute power, but the Dem's were trying a bit of a compromise....you get what you want we get what we want. If they really want to end the war they'll need to play harder.

Answer 5

I think what people were most excited about balance being restored and Bush no longer having carte blanche. However, the President still has veto power. The House and the Senate require a 2/3 vote to override a veto, and there simply isn't enough of a Democratic margin to override the vetoes.

Answer 6

The U.S; has 3 branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial) and a system of checks and balances that was put in place by the Constitution. Even thought the democrats won the House and Senate last year the checks and balances still control what they can do. They can pass any legislation, but the President can veto it. If he vetoes it, the Congress can overturn his veto with a 2/3 vote of it's members. Right now the democrats don't have the votes to overturn his veto. The judicial branch of government is in place to determine if either of the other two branches of government does anything that is unconstitutional.

Answer 7

Congress, in which the Democrats have a majority, can override a veto, but it takes a larger majority than they have, and they couldn't get enough Republicans to vote with them.

The other option Congress has - and it's a clear constitutional power - is to simply not pass a funding bill for the war /at all/. That would force the President to withdraw immediately.

So the Democrats /do/ have the power to carry through with thier campaign promises, and bring the troops home. Maybe not in a perfect, orderly fashion, but it can be done.

Answer 8

The President can veto bills but if his actions go too much against the will of the people, his party will lose more seats in the next election until it gets to the point where they will be able to override the veto. Presidents are traditionally careful about their use of veto power because there can be political backlash. Our system is not set up to turn on a dime, for better or for worse.

Also, the President's term is up, so vetoes are even more costly because it could cost his party the Presidency in the next election.

Answer 9

The practical answer is: not much. The President is, under the Constitution, the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The President also can veto any law with which he disagrees, although with a supermajority (which the Democrats do not have) a veto can be overridden. Meanwhile, the bad guys are watching, hoping that the Congress will manage to tie the President's hands so that they can work their nefarious designs in peace and comfort.

Answer 10

This is precisely the reason some people like having a divided government. No one group can make changes and everything pretty much stays status quo. That being said, the bozo’s above who abdicate defunding the war don’t care much for whether they win in 2008 or not and that is why it will not happen. No one – listen to what I say – no one will vote to defund the troops. Won’t happen if they want reelection. And for all the smart nuanced people out there that think it wont be spun that way in the press – grow up.

The democrats for the most part believe they got a mandate about the war in the 2006 elections. This is not what happened – the republicans got a mandate to clean house.

History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside. - John F. Kennedy

Answer 11

Tho the bill was passed by the House and Senate, the president has the right to veto it.

Now what the democrats can do to pass the bill is to override the veto, however it requires 2/3 of votes from each chamber which the democrats doesnt have.

Best Answer?