NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush recently used his fourth veto. (The other three (http://www.vote-smart.org/official_veto.php?can_id=22369)are here.) Now, if we consider the check the president is supposed to have on Congress, the power of veto, it seems that the past six years would have been just as good if the president had no say in the passage of laws. There would still be someone to execute the laws, (he is, after all, the executive) but how would things have been different if there was no policy-maker? What do posters think? Would it have been just as well if the president just did what Congress told him? What about in general?

Also, I realize this thread may allow for Bush-bashing. Please don't. Consider his role in a purely logistic way.

I think that the President's main role in the lawmaking aspect of government is to mainly sign off on what the Congress says, but the President is still a very important part of the Federal system. If there is no President, then Congress must make ALL decisions for the country. In areas such as foreign policy, economic goals, and especially defense, the President's role is to make split second calls that haste along the goals of our nation. If he is not there, the readiness / situation response capacity is greatly diminished because we all know how long it takes Congress to do ANYTHING.

Well, this is all depends on perspective, because, for example, it would seem that a freshman congressman would command less media attention than the President. The President will always have that power, even if that one congressman does the actual voting on a bill. He has 434 other people voting as well, and then the 100 senators. By using his veto power sparingly (consider Andrew Jackson, who used it 12 times), the presdent is showing to the American public what he considers amogn the most important issues in the country (that he doesn't concur with the Congress on). The threat of a veto after mid-term elections just goes to show you what a better chance John Kerry might have had if the presidential election had happened in 2006. Democrats have a majority in Congress, and plety of other state governments where they had the chance to take power. Much of public opinion has gone blue.

It's better than anarchy..

Part of the reason there have been so vetoes is that bills are changed to meet the President's wishes before they get to his desk. He has threatened to veto many bills that were then changed.

Part of the reason there have been so vetoes is that bills are changed to meet the President's wishes before they get to his desk. He has threatened to veto many bills that were then changed.

That's true. The president can bully Congress, and has the power to mess with public opinion when he feels like it. The media are more likely to show up when the president makes a statement than when some congressman does - as long as that remains the case, the president will be pretty powerful. :p

The big problem is that recently congress has lacked the spine to stand up to the president. They need to be able to say "until you meet our demands, no bill you want to sign will come across your desk."

The big problem is that recently congress has lacked the spine to stand up to the president. They need to be able to say "until you meet our demands, no bill you want to sign will come across your desk."


Well that's true in one sense, but remember that the president has the authority (privledge) of being able to make public announcements and speeches about bills that he wants passed, and especially if it is something that a lot of the public knows / cares about (education, healthcare, etc.) he can make the Congress look like complete idiots and dis-Patriots if they refuse to give him any legislation to pass until he meets their demands.

I'd rather have a parliamentary system.

Nixon once said something like the president pretty much isn't needed.
and the country could basically run on auto-pilot.

President Bush recently used his fourth veto. (The other three (http://www.vote-smart.org/official_veto.php?can_id=22369)are here.) Now, if we consider the check the president is supposed to have on Congress, the power of veto, it seems that the past six years would have been just as good if the president had no say in the passage of laws. There would still be someone to execute the laws, (he is, after all, the executive) but how would things have been different if there was no policy-maker? What do posters think? Would it have been just as well if the president just did what Congress told him? What about in general?

Also, I realize this thread may allow for Bush-bashing. Please don't. Consider his role in a purely logistic way.

If the U.S wants just a symbolic figurehead for their head of state they should have stayed a British colony and become a Constitutional Monarchy like Canada....:p

The President is divinely ordained by our Lord creator. Removing his office would be an affront to God Himself. Proceed at thy own peril, ye theophobic ninnies!