It doesn't seem fair that Bush can just shoot down anything Congress passes. How in the hell is anything going to get accomplished?
2007-07-15 08:59:50 · 16 answers · asked by David 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's what happens when you brainwash Americans into thinking we have a two party system. Only two parties ever get elected, the country ends up evenly divided on all the major issues, and Congress ends up divided to the point that they never have enough votes to override a veto.
coragryph brings up an excellent point about the Executive Branch not being able to force legislation through the Legislative Branch. Congress could simply stop funding all sorts of things if they wanted.
The founding fathers purposely designed the Legislative Branch to be the most powerful branch. If the Judicial Branch strikes down one of their laws as unconstitutional, then they can initiate the process to amend the Constitution. If the President vetoes a Bill then they can override it.
2007-07-15 09:04:56 · answer #1 · answered by Chad 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is part of the American democratic system at work. The Congress may over ride the president's veto by a 2/3rd vote.
2007-07-15 09:05:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the true problem is that all these people are being critical on the Democratic Congress not ending the war when it's their President that they support and can't do any wrong that is keeping it from happening. I mean, either you want the war ended and you put the blame on Bush for vetoing everything or you want the war to continue and thus you support Bush in his veto action. It isn't Congress' fault though.
2007-07-15 09:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Congress can overturn the veto if 2/3 of congress approves the bill.
Vetoes and veto-overrides were made to make sure one branch does not become too powerful.
2007-07-15 09:16:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Questions just aren't working out that well for ya are they?
The question you should ask yourself is why did the Democrats keep pushing a bill that was going to get vetoed, they were told he would veto and shove it down the voters throats that it was Bush's fault?
That really was the height of idiocy and people fell for it.
2007-07-15 09:21:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Welcome to the world of politics.
It may not seem fair, but that's how the Constitution requires the process to occur.
But Congress has it's own ability to force issues. They have exclusive control over federal funds, and cannot be compelled by the executive to allocate any funds. So, Congress can use that club to get what they want, by refusing approve any funding bills. That's not veto-able, because the executive cannot compel Congress to enact any legislation. The executive can only approve or veto what Congress passes.
2007-07-15 09:04:41 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Life isn't fair, get used to it. Things will get accomplished with cooperation. This is how the system works.
2007-07-15 09:11:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They can veto the veto if they get enough support (60 votes). This has yet to happen, though.
2007-07-15 09:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by LIGER20498 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
But President Bush has ONLY vetoed 2 bills that made it too his desk in the last 6.5 years!!!! Stop blaming him for the DEMOCRATS inability to pass their own agenda!!!!!!
2007-07-15 09:07:54 · answer #9 · answered by david b 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush has used less vetoes than any other president in history.
Congress also has the ability to override those vetoes
2007-07-15 09:03:16 · answer #10 · answered by bigtalltom 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋