Is it Constitutional that Mr. Bush vetoes it for the second time (probably but almost for sure) I mean:
If it has been already accepted through the Congress and it has widespread public support, then why Mr. Bush vetoes it?
Is there a jurisdictional way to get out of this?
2007-06-19 23:29:51 · 6 answers · asked by Yow Joo 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I did not knew that the issue is around founding...(I do not live in the US)
But thanks for your answers so far..
2007-06-20 01:16:10 · update #1
The only way around it is to get 2/3ds of Congress to override the veto. That's the Constitutional method.
By the way, there's a huge difference between "banning" and "refusing to fund". He's not trying to make it unlawful to use embryonic stem cells for research, he's just not willing to agree to use tax money for it, as it has produced ZERO results to date. That's compared to "adult stem cells", which HAVE produced results.
I think it would be an irresponsible use of tax dollars, at least until it shows some promise of results.
2007-06-19 23:38:41 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Embryonic Stem Cell research has some great publicisty with nothing, absolutely nothing to show for it. There is promise but no results or proof that it will help in any medical research. Adult Stem cells on the other hand have show progress and help in creating bone marrow and such. So, instead of reinforcing failure (embryonic) I think the government should concentrate more on what is working. We waste too much time and resources on theories and not enough on the practical when it comes to medical research.
2007-06-20 07:16:41 · answer #2 · answered by Tom Sh*t 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Bush is opposed to using federal tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research. He is not opposed to stem sell research.
Mr. Bush's objections are on moral grounds. For the research that has been done so far, embryonic stem cells hold no promise. So there is no point in spending money on it.
If a two-thirds majority in the House and in the Senate vote for the bill, they can override his veto.
2007-06-20 06:36:19 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
1st I am not for the destruction of embros for science because there are other sources and there has been 0 cures from embronic stem cells. Adult stem cells have 73 cures so far.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
2nd Yes it is Constiutional. There was wide spread support for partial birth abortion but Clinton veto it.
I keep hearing potential for cures and haven't seen any.
BTW: The world is also looking for cures and they haven't found any from the destruction of embros.
Or do you think we should follow the Ukrain model
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm
2007-06-20 06:47:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's been widely accepted by congress, why can't they get enough votes to override a veto?
2007-06-20 06:38:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Um mm. Yes I do, but that isn't the issue.
The issue is whether the government will pick up the tab in grants...
2007-06-20 06:34:07 · answer #6 · answered by Dina W 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋