If you think Congress should hault working on bills that the President threatens to veto, do you think that eliminates our system of balance?
If you think Congress should continue to present bills to the President that he threatens to veto, what purpose would it serve?
Also, should the President compromise with Congress, or Congress compromise with the President?
This is not in reference to any particular subject, but just a general question. Please answer according to the question. Thank you!
2007-11-01 03:51:19 · 15 answers · asked by Lisa M 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The President needs to be accountable to the people of the United States and to Congress.
It is irresponsible for him to say that Congress should not send any bills that he should veto. He is President, not King.
2007-11-01 03:53:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
It serves two purposes. First, it shows the American people that Congress is trying to do things in the best interest of the country, and that the President is the reason these things aren't getting done. This helps people tp be more educated when voting.
Second, Congress does have the ability to override a President's veto, so a veto is not an automatic failure.
2007-11-01 03:55:30 · answer #2 · answered by Fred S - AM Cappo Di Tutti Capi 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Yes, when it;s legislation that the majority of Americans want. The democrats were only 10 republican votes short of overturning the presidents veto the last time. Maybe they will come to their senses and discover that their primary obligation is to the people of this country and not to the president and their party.
The bigger question is why is Bush vetoing such legislation?
2007-11-01 03:55:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Good leadership in Congress is not some childish game of "king of the hill" verses the Executive Branch. I would think that an effective Congress would have numerous bills passed through bipartisanship by the use of compromise.
2007-11-01 03:58:52 · answer #4 · answered by rance42 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Congress should do the job of writing and passing legislation regardless of what the executive says will happen to such legislation. Congress does have override power, after all.
Bush telling the congress what to do is the utmost in pompous, self-aggrandizing behavior.
2007-11-01 04:07:45 · answer #5 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
President Bush has turned the Executive Branch into the corporatocracy's branch. The Legislative is the People's branch.
It demonstrates how far removed the President's policies are from the needs of the American people.
2007-11-01 03:53:45 · answer #6 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 10⤊ 0⤋
I positioned partial blame during the Bush administration on the Democrats. in spite of each little thing, Bush signed that rubbish into regulation that Democrats despatched him. And the Democrats had administration of the two homes of Congress. Republicans have basically the abode. not the senate. Democrats had the two with Bush. yet you knew that this grow to be not a similar. you basically want to make stuff up.
2016-09-28 03:14:48 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they should. Just because the President is a petulant child doesn't mean Congress should enable his actions.
2007-11-01 03:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by gone 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if they think they can get the votes to override. I jsut think it is a shame that he thinks he is smarter than the majority of congress. He is acting more and more like a dictator.
2007-11-01 04:01:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush has only vetoed 4 bills in 7 years. if the Congress really wants to pass a bill they can override him at any time.
2007-11-01 03:55:00 · answer #10 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋