Get rid of veto power!
IL Ruffino
29-03-2007, 05:03
.. because I don't want Bush to have it! Nothing will succeed as long as he has veto power.
What ever happened to "Majority rules"? :(
Dobbsworld
29-03-2007, 05:06
What ever happened to "Majority rules"? :(
I think that got shelved back in '00, didn't it?
Lame Bums
29-03-2007, 05:08
.. because I don't want Bush to have it! Nothing will succeed as long as he has veto power.
What ever happened to "Majority rules"? :(
Twelve years ago, it was the exact opposite--with the Republican sweep in '94 and Clinton in office.
It's called checks and balances, so we avoid either extreme end of the parties.
And, sincerely, since when has any good shit gotten done in government?
In time, that would reveal itself to be a poor decision. If Bush want to veto the deadline, he has to veto the budget too. They are both on the same bill. He has no out in this case. :)
Atolacles
29-03-2007, 05:14
Just as the poll states, Congress can overturn it so there is no point in getting rid of veto power. Checks and Balances brah!
Nothing happened to majority rule. They just need a larger majority if the president(who, by the way, is elected by majority, and yes I know this is not popular vote) vetoes the bill.
Dukarbana
29-03-2007, 05:16
Like others said, Checks and Balances. Besides, you may never know when a veto might stop a "bad" bill.
The Nazz
29-03-2007, 05:17
No thanks. I like the veto, even when it's wielded by a moron like Bush. I sure wouldn't have wanted the Congress from 1994-2000 to have had unfettered power.
Lacadaemon
29-03-2007, 05:23
I think he's only actually used it once. And about stem cells. (I might be wrong, but that's my recollection).
He has a more nuanced approach. He'll pass any spending bill, no matter how moronic. But if a non-spending bill is passed he doesn't like, he writes a little statement at the bottom saying he'll ignore. Since this option doesn't really exist in the first place, I'm not sure how to get rid of it.
It's all a puppet show anyway.
New Stalinberg
29-03-2007, 05:26
Just remember that Bush will always be president so we'll definatly need to revoke the right to veto for our future presidents, who will always be just as useless as incompetent as Bush is.
Lame Bums
29-03-2007, 05:29
In time, that would reveal itself to be a poor decision. If Bush want to veto the deadline, he has to veto the budget too. They are both on the same bill. He has no out in this case. :)
He already said that he would veto the bill as-is. Thing is, if you listen to his exact words, he put it rather well, and is shifting the blame (correctly - the bill has some $24-odd billion in pork attached) over to the Democrats in Congress. Ball's on their half of the court now.
He already said that he would veto the bill as-is. Thing is, if you listen to his exact words, he put it rather well, and is shifting the blame (correctly - the bill has some $24-odd billion in pork attached) over to the Democrats in Congress. Ball's on their half of the court now.
Gah, I'm debating this topic in two threads at one. I disagree, most of the populace will blame Bush if he refuses to sign. Who said the democrats will agree to a new budget? He cant distribute money without congressional approval. He either accepts the deadline or the military action has no funds and thus ends immediately.
The Nazz
29-03-2007, 05:33
I think he's only actually used it once. And about stem cells. (I might be wrong, but that's my recollection).
He has a more nuanced approach. He'll pass any spending bill, no matter how moronic. But if a non-spending bill is passed he doesn't like, he writes a little statement at the bottom saying he'll ignore. Since this option doesn't really exist in the first place, I'm not sure how to get rid of it.
It's all a puppet show anyway.
Exactly right. The issue right now is basically that Bush, whenever he makes those signing statements that nullify a part of the law, is breaking his oath of office, because he's not executing the office of the President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If he's not executing the laws, he's breaking that oath. Problem is, there's really only one effective way to call him on it, and that's impeachment, and the problem with impeachment is that it's not about right and wrong--it's about political power. And while the Democrats are currently ascendant, they're not that ascendant, and finding 19 Republican Senators to cross the aisle to dump Bush this close to an election year is beyond a pipe dream.
The Nazz
29-03-2007, 05:36
Gah, I'm debating this topic in two threads at one. I disagree, most of the populace will blame Bush if he refuses to sign. Who said the democrats will agree to a new budget? He cant distribute money without congressional approval. He either accepts the deadline or the military action has no funds and thus ends immediately.
He's talking tough--really, he's talking like a guy with approval ratings in the 60s instead of like a guy who's at half that. But he didn't get into the 30s in a vacuum--people just don't trust him on anything anymore, especially on Iraq, so if he thinks he can win them back by acting tough, I think he's deluding himself a bit.
Lacadaemon
29-03-2007, 05:41
Exactly right. The issue right now is basically that Bush, whenever he makes those signing statements that nullify a part of the law, is breaking his oath of office, because he's not executing the office of the President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If he's not executing the laws, he's breaking that oath. Problem is, there's really only one effective way to call him on it, and that's impeachment, and the problem with impeachment is that it's not about right and wrong--it's about political power. And while the Democrats are currently ascendant, they're not that ascendant, and finding 19 Republican Senators to cross the aisle to dump Bush this close to an election year is beyond a pipe dream.
I don't think an impeachment hearing so soon after the last one would be such a great idea anyway. People, rightly or wrongly, would start to view them as ordinary politics and come to expect them all the time. I'm sure the media would love that, but it would annoy the hell out of me.
I'm surprised no one has used the ordinary courts to call him on the signing statements however. I suppose it's a matter of finding the right plaintiff.
Exactly right. The issue right now is basically that Bush, whenever he makes those signing statements that nullify a part of the law, is breaking his oath of office, because he's not executing the office of the President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If he's not executing the laws, he's breaking that oath. Problem is, there's really only one effective way to call him on it, and that's impeachment, and the problem with impeachment is that it's not about right and wrong--it's about political power. And while the Democrats are currently ascendant, they're not that ascendant, and finding 19 Republican Senators to cross the aisle to dump Bush this close to an election year is beyond a pipe dream.
But a signing statement on such a Bill should finally draw the attention necessary for a political upheaval. The American people often appear placated and ignorant, but play with the systems they trust and they can come at you like a cobra. Think FDR and his Supreme Court maneuver. The people loved him and they still bit him, Bush doesn't even have that advantage.
Soviestan
29-03-2007, 06:19
I say keep it. Part of the whole "checks and balances" thing.
The Brevious
29-03-2007, 07:48
They are both on the same bill. He has no out in this case. :)I second your smilie, on a technicality.
Trotskylvania
29-03-2007, 21:19
.. because I don't want Bush to have it! Nothing will succeed as long as he has veto power.
What ever happened to "Majority rules"? :(
I think that the 2/3rds threshold to overturn the veto should be reduced to something like 60%. I think that that is an acceptable compromise. It weakens executive power considerable (which has run amok here in the US) and give Congress more power to assert its equality with the President.
The Scandinvans
29-03-2007, 21:23
Like others said, Checks and Balances. Besides, you may never know when a veto might stop a "bad" bill.Well, it did stop my bill which would make me Lord President for Life of the U.S. so I do think veto does work, once in a while at least.:D
.. because I don't want Bush to have it! Nothing will succeed as long as he has veto power.
What ever happened to "Majority rules"? :(
you don't want majority rules.
don't worry, he'll be out in two years. (this one and next year.)
Think about it this way: the more Congress does, the more they screw us over. The veto slows this process down. Therefore, the veto is good.