NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people seem to have misunderstood what a veto is really for. Some people have argued, in recent events, that because Bush has the power of veto, Congress should pass bills in his favour. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the power of a veto.

The power of a veto exists not as a leverage, but as a means to say "Stop!" It's supposed to be used against things that destroy civil rights such as the PATRIOT act. In the UN, it isn't supposed to create. It is deliberately created to end a discussion here and there. A veto, in fact, is never supposed to create. It is supposed to stall, slow down and make people think things through when they didn't get it right.

It is, in short, not a creative power, but a destructive one. It is necessary, because it limits the power of a potentially power-hungry source (in the US, that would be the congress. In the UN, it limits action that would cause strife between member states).

So people, please understand: A veto is not a: "you're either going to do things my way or no way at all." it's a: "We're not doing this."

In the case of the US military, it gets funding once a year. If there was a set budget for every year that just needed to be adjusted, then this wouldn't even be an issue. But there isn't a set budget, so vetoing means "We're not doing this" where this is "funding the US military".

In the whole it's: "We're not funding the US military."

And that's what a veto is: Being conservative and not doing anything. It's the whole point.

Just thought I'd offer some support for your efforts here since I harmfully misquoted you in the other thread and I'm too lazy to edit it once again since it is still not completely corrected.

But isn't the current issue for which the veto is relevant a case in which our President IS saying "We are not doing it your way, we are doing it my way"?

The point of the veto was not to stop military fundiing (oh that it were!) but rather to stop the "get out of Iraq" timetable that had been added to it. Because a bill must be vetoed in whole, Bush had no other way to assert his continuing control than to scrap the whole thing.

If he could have just chopped off the withdrawal clause an kept the money, don't you think he would have?

Some people seem to have misunderstood what a veto is really for. Some people have argued, in recent events, that because Bush has the power of veto, Congress should pass bills in his favour. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the power of a veto.

In a different post, you said pretty much this same comment to me. And I did not intend for what I said to give that impression. At no point in time should Congress write bills that are in the President's favor.

The power of a veto exists not as a leverage, but as a means to say "Stop!" It's supposed to be used against things that destroy civil rights such as the PATRIOT act. In the UN, it isn't supposed to create. It is deliberately created to end a discussion here and there. A veto, in fact, is never supposed to create. It is supposed to stall, slow down and make people think things through when they didn't get it right.

This unfortunately, Bush did attempt to use the veto as leverage, it was wrong, but also he firmly believes that setting a timeline is wrong and he wants Congress to reconsider their position.

On that note, however, Congress does have the power to override a veto if they can get a two-third majority vote.

It is, in short, not a creative power, but a destructive one. It is necessary, because it limits the power of a potentially power-hungry source (in the US, that would be the congress. In the UN, it limits action that would cause strife between member states).

I agree, whole heartedly.

So people, please understand: A veto is not a: "you're either going to do things my way or no way at all." it's a: "We're not doing this."

Thank you for bringing this to light. I hope we all ready and understand it.

In the case of the US military, it gets funding once a year. If there was a set budget for every year that just needed to be adjusted, then this wouldn't even be an issue. But there isn't a set budget, so vetoing means "We're not doing this" where this is "funding the US military".

In the whole it's: "We're not funding the US military."

And that's what a veto is: Being conservative and not doing anything. It's the whole point.

Understood, thank you for enlightening us.