Go back
Bush the Dictator?

Bush the Dictator?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
I am aware of that fact but I was responding to torch's criticism of the current situation, and wondering about alternatives.
Getting rid of the veto is not an option. That would tip the balance of power.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Merk
Getting rid of the veto is not an option. That would tip the balance of power.
The UK gets on fine without a President with veto powers. The Queen does have the power of veto but she (hopefully) knows the second she uses it she's signing the end of the monarchy.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
The UK gets on fine without a President with veto powers. The Queen does have the power of veto but she (hopefully) knows the second she uses it she's signing the end of the monarchy.
The first chamber (house of Lords) is basically the veto. It can send a parlimentary bill back two times (third shot it passes).

Taking into account these people (the house of lords) are either rich land owners or/and people who paid the government for the privilage, I don't see why it's any better than having a president.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
The first chamber (house of Lords) is basically the veto. It can send a parlimentary bill back two times (third shot it passes).

Taking into account these people (the house of lords) are either rich land owners or/and people who paid the government for the privilage, I don't see why it's any better than having a president.
Right, and reform of the Lords so that it is more representative of the people has been on the agenda for a long time (though doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast...).

I'm just curious about the view expressed in the article that a President is viewed as 'weak' if he doesn't use his veto much. Is that a widely held view in America?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
The UK gets on fine without a President with veto powers. The Queen does have the power of veto but she (hopefully) knows the second she uses it she's signing the end of the monarchy.
You don't have a president. Of course you don't have a presidential veto.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
Right, and reform of the Lords so that it is more representative of the people has been on the agenda for a long time (though doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast...).

I'm just curious about the view expressed in the article that a President is viewed as 'weak' if he doesn't use his veto much. Is that a widely held view in America?
Its not widely held among the general population. Though this president has certainly been weak at best on domestic issues since 9/11, its not just because he didn't veto much, its because there was many a good reason to use it and he didn't.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
...I'm just curious about the view expressed in the article that a President is viewed as 'weak' if he doesn't use his veto much. Is that a widely held view in America?
The president has not used the Veto because until this year there was a Congress in place that was friendly to him.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
One man using a veto to overrule the wishes of the elected majority smells more like an authoritarian state than a democratic one. However Dubbya will have used his power of veto only twice after this war-funding bill, FAR less than the average US dictator/president. Here are some numbers from a BBC article:

Highest number exercised:
F D Roosevelt (1 ...[text shortened]... by how many times they overrule the elected majority? How is this a promotion of democracy?
quite odd to see EllEffSeee singing Bush's praises. switching over?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
quite odd to see EllEffSeee singing Bush's praises. switching over?
I'm not; I'm aware that the post 9-11 political climate combined with the domination of the houses by the republicans over the past 6 years has not provided many reasons to use the veto. My questions are more along the lines of 'is the veto necessary?', so I should have titled the thread better.

Anyway what makes you think I am anti-Bush?

Vote Up
Vote Down

The reason the veto wasn't used much is that the negotiating was done before the vote took place in the first place. This includes things passed by the Democrat Congress. The current issue is basically this: The majority of the Democrats behind the surrender bill voted for us going in the first place, and before the usual "bush lied" comment, read the record. Clinton said the same things during his presidency. The democrats in Congress had sent a letter to Clinton urging him to act against Sadam. That all aside, the fact of the matter is that the US military was ordered to take out Sadam. They did that faster than any other time in history. The original goal was completed, and as Bush said mission accomplished. The next mission isn't as easy but is necessary to prevent what happened after Vietnam which was over a million wiped out. Also the obvious importance is that a significant portion of the world's energy reserves are in the region and need to be protected. Now after the brave men and women are being humiliated by pulling the rug out from under them and effectively surrendering. Their hard work loss of their closest friends is being spit on by a Congress that only cares about political gains. If they feel as strongly as they say they do why don't they simply state that they want immediate withdrawal? Because they would go down in history as cowards.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The president has not used the Veto because until this year there was a Congress in place that was friendly to him.
Very friendly.

Contrast that with Clinton's second term - I imagine a lot of his vetos were used then.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Congress can override the veto if it considers it again and it passes with a 3/4 majority. Or maybe it's 2/3, hell i don't know, it's something like that. The system seems to have worked OK so far.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Congress can override the veto if it considers it again and it passes with a 3/4 majority. Or maybe it's 2/3, hell i don't know, it's something like that. The system seems to have worked OK so far.
Overrides have to pass both houses with a 2/3 majority, and it happens fewer than one time in ten.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bbarr
Overrides have to pass both houses with a 2/3 majority, and it happens fewer than one time in ten.
Then the legislative branch can overide the executive if it feels strongly enough about it. If it's just a whisper thin majority and the president doesn't like it, he can tell them no and have them rethink it for more debate. Seems like a good system.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The "checks and balances" got out of whack for about 6 years.

The Republicians had all the power cornered.
The Donkeys emploded ... and are still floundering around in a daze.

No leadership on the Left .. they went over the edge and out of touch with the mainstream American people.

That's my story .. and i'm stickin' to it.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.