Are there limits on the frequency, or total number of presidential vetos permitted within a term, or specific timeframe ?
2007-11-13
13:24:10
·
8 answers
·
asked by
max c
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Elections
Thanks, to the first respondent,
to the 2nd, I didn't ask for any retorical
analysis.
2007-11-13
13:42:26 ·
update #1
Thanks to all who replied, partisan
commentary aside, all gave fairly
informative reasoned information.
Would award most "Best answer" if
that were possible.
2007-11-13
18:29:46 ·
update #2
The word veto does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation by the Congress of the United States to be presented to the President of the United States for his approval. When the President is presented the bill, he can either sign it into law, return the bill to the originating house of Congress with his objections to the bill (a veto), or neither sign nor return it to Congress after having been presented the bill for ten days exempting Sundays (if Congress is still in session, the bill becomes a law; otherwise, the bill does not become a law and is considered a pocket veto).
The US Constitution is silent on limitations of Presidential veto...
The Congress may overrule a Presidential veto but it requires two-thirds of the members of each house Congress
2007-11-13 14:55:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by quieroexitzero 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
At the present time, there are no limits on the frequency or the total numbers of presidential vetoes.
No court has ever considered whether there are legal restrictions on the subject matter of a presidential veto. However, many of the original presidents considered the veto to be limited to legislation that the president believed to be unconstitutional with no authority to veto merely because the president disagreed with the policy enacted by the legislation. By this standard most of the vetos of the past 100 years would have been improper.
If this question were ever to be decided by a court, it would be interesting as it would place original intent (which may have included a limit) against the express text of the Constitution (which does not include any limit). It is most likely, however, that the courts would consider this issue to be a "political question" that should be resolved by the legislature (which can overide any veto that 2/3 of both houses consider to be improper) rather than a legal question to be decided by the courts.
2007-11-13 14:03:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tmess2 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Look up, on the Internet, "Clinton Vetoes Undermine the Constitution" by David Mayer of the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, June 1996. This is a good history of use of the veto by Presidents since George Washinton, and particularly the lavish use of it by Grover Cleveland, U.S. Grant, FDR, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.
It was intended to be used in a limited manner, as George W. Bush has done.
2007-11-13 13:56:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by senior citizen 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No, The President has the option of Vetoing every bill sent to them. Seems this is what Bush is set to do with the Democrat Controlled Congress. Now that is playing Politics as he never Vetoed one Republican Bill Not one, he passed them all..
He conned the Republican Controlled House and Senate into giving him 'signing statements' after that terrible day, September 11, 2001.. Once again, he was playing politics.
God for bid a Democrat President do the same exact things Bush has done for the past six years.
Democrats do start wars!
2007-11-13 13:45:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Tigger 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
they might with a 2/3 majority vote.contemporary congress is enjoying politics; they'll bypass a bill without threat of Presidential approval and fairly of revising the bill into one that has bipartisan help,they'll placed the bill to a vote and then declare to be "shocked" that the republicans did no longer get on the band wagon and vote to override veto.they're doing all that they might to be devisive.
2016-12-08 21:12:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by melgoza 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
no there isn't a restriction on veto''s but there is a override of the veto .
2007-11-13 18:35:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No there aren't, and shouldn't be.
It has to be noted that GW Bush didn't veto a single bill for six years in office. Instead he signed them but issued 'signing statements' declaring himself exempt--now -that- is illegal!
2007-11-13 13:27:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
No.
2007-11-13 13:26:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by desotobrave 6
·
2⤊
0⤋