I mean, you could just get rid of the ability of the president to veto in the first place and bypass all this nonsense. I’m about to go to sleep for the night so maybe I’m missing something but it feels pointless to me that the executive branch even has that power.
The veto makes sense in the context of functional checks and balances. The point of a veto is it allows the President to force the legislature to reconsider and revise a bill that may have only passed by simple majority, requiring them to create a “better” bill that is palatable to 2/3rds of representatives rather than 50%+1.
However, as with the rest of the American experiment, it assumes the entire operation in good faith, which hasn’t been the case for decades.
It doesn’t work when you don’t have a defined mechanism to enforce the balance after the check. These historical documents were written when your word meant something. Like they said above it works when people are doing things in good faith.
I don’t quite agree with your assessment. There are not a whole lot of mechanisms in the constitution for “the people” do more than vote every couple of years or violently opposed the elected government. Look at fetterman and sinema. Both turn from what seemed to be progressive candidates to the main reason several legislative things fell through. I’m sure several people wish they could do something more immediate than wait until their term is up.
In none of the more or less functional democracies does the head of government have the right to veto bills. Granting legislative powers to the executive is not a check or balance, it disrupts the separation of powers.
You can achieve a check on the legislative by using a bicameral system, as many systems do, though in practice it doesn’t end up resulting in significantly better governance than unicameral systems that are also found among the aforementioned group. It’s far more important to ensure no single party, faction or (especially) individual has a monopoly on any of the branches of government. You might be surprised how little power the most powerful individual has in any such democracy.
Granting legislative powers to the executive is not a check or balance, it disrupts the separation of powers.
It is not a legislative power though. A veto is not the executive writing a law. A veto is the executive saying “hey Senate, this bill sucks and I don’t want to implement it. Go back to the drawing board and either make something I like, or make something that all of you like more than 2/3.”
Its a forced reconsideration that can avoid hastily written laws passed on a 50+1 and create laws that are more broadly palatable to the country as a whole.
Again, it makes sense in a rational system, with rational people- something we haven’t had since before Reagan.
The veto has its purposes, but maybe don’t allow a veto on a bill that passed with a veto proof super majority to begin with and waste everyone’s time and money?
If the president veto’s a bill passed by super majority, whatever the difference is to make the vote fail, that many people need to actively step forward to say their vote will change to oppose it.
If enough people step forward that voted for it, then a new vote happens.
Otherwise, nothing happens and no effort needs to be expended on it. The senate can just shrug it’s shoulders and move on.
At the very least I don’t understand why he even has the option if the bill passed the threshold already. I can understand the concept of the veto, but isn’t it a waste of time if the vote was already veto-proof.
The United States government is made of three co-equal branches, with one of those branches being responsible for appointing the members of one of the others and able to veto the decisions of the third.
I mean, you could just get rid of the ability of the president to veto in the first place and bypass all this nonsense. I’m about to go to sleep for the night so maybe I’m missing something but it feels pointless to me that the executive branch even has that power.
The veto makes sense in the context of functional checks and balances. The point of a veto is it allows the President to force the legislature to reconsider and revise a bill that may have only passed by simple majority, requiring them to create a “better” bill that is palatable to 2/3rds of representatives rather than 50%+1.
However, as with the rest of the American experiment, it assumes the entire operation in good faith, which hasn’t been the case for decades.
Looks great on paper, doesn’t work in practice.
It doesn’t work when you don’t have a defined mechanism to enforce the balance after the check. These historical documents were written when your word meant something. Like they said above it works when people are doing things in good faith.
The balance is supposed to be the people. Unfortunately, the American people don’t care about corruption.
I don’t quite agree with your assessment. There are not a whole lot of mechanisms in the constitution for “the people” do more than vote every couple of years or violently opposed the elected government. Look at fetterman and sinema. Both turn from what seemed to be progressive candidates to the main reason several legislative things fell through. I’m sure several people wish they could do something more immediate than wait until their term is up.
In none of the more or less functional democracies does the head of government have the right to veto bills. Granting legislative powers to the executive is not a check or balance, it disrupts the separation of powers.
You can achieve a check on the legislative by using a bicameral system, as many systems do, though in practice it doesn’t end up resulting in significantly better governance than unicameral systems that are also found among the aforementioned group. It’s far more important to ensure no single party, faction or (especially) individual has a monopoly on any of the branches of government. You might be surprised how little power the most powerful individual has in any such democracy.
It is not a legislative power though. A veto is not the executive writing a law. A veto is the executive saying “hey Senate, this bill sucks and I don’t want to implement it. Go back to the drawing board and either make something I like, or make something that all of you like more than 2/3.” Its a forced reconsideration that can avoid hastily written laws passed on a 50+1 and create laws that are more broadly palatable to the country as a whole.
Again, it makes sense in a rational system, with rational people- something we haven’t had since before Reagan.
The veto has its purposes, but maybe don’t allow a veto on a bill that passed with a veto proof super majority to begin with and waste everyone’s time and money?
Actually that sounds like a very fair compromise; I really like your thinking!
An alternative option as well.
If the president veto’s a bill passed by super majority, whatever the difference is to make the vote fail, that many people need to actively step forward to say their vote will change to oppose it.
If enough people step forward that voted for it, then a new vote happens.
Otherwise, nothing happens and no effort needs to be expended on it. The senate can just shrug it’s shoulders and move on.
At the very least I don’t understand why he even has the option if the bill passed the threshold already. I can understand the concept of the veto, but isn’t it a waste of time if the vote was already veto-proof.
The United States government is made of three co-equal branches, with one of those branches being responsible for appointing the members of one of the others and able to veto the decisions of the third.