Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeThe first chamber (house of Lords) is basically the veto. It can send a parlimentary bill back two times (third shot it passes).
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.
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.
Originally posted by shavixmirRight, 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...).
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.
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?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeIts 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.
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?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeThe president has not used the Veto because until this year there was a Congress in place that was friendly to him.
...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?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeequite odd to see EllEffSeee singing Bush's praises. switching over?
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?
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'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.
quite odd to see EllEffSeee singing Bush's praises. switching over?
Anyway what makes you think I am anti-Bush?
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.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamOverrides have to pass both houses with a 2/3 majority, and it happens fewer than one time in ten.
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.
Originally posted by bbarrThen 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.
Overrides have to pass both houses with a 2/3 majority, and it happens fewer than one time in ten.
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.