What was the thinking of the writers of the US constitution when they allowed the President to refuse to sign a bill into law, and so prevent its enactment,notwithstanding that the bill had the support of up to a two thirds majority in the lower houses ?

Why did they not think that it was undemocratic to allow one man,albeit elected, to run counter to the greater part of the elected members? It must be possible, in theory, for a President who has extremely low support in the country as well as no great support in Congress to refuse the wishes of the people.

Is there any kind of bill which the President is not allowed to 'veto' ?

Is this an example of the writers doing their best to mimic, in more democratic form, the system which they knew of in Britain viz. an upper and a lower house and a monarch who could "veto" any bill? If so, perhaps they had failed to notice that this right was no longer exercised .The last British monarch to do so had, exceptionally, done so in 1708. The subject was the raising of a militia in Scotland: the Queen feared that the militia would prove untrustworthy and it would be militarily dangerous to allow Parliament its wishes. (Who says history doesn't repeat itself? )Thereafter no monarch exercised this prerogative.

I've wondered about this myself. I decided that it must have to do with the 'other' model of democracy, that the people choose a leader, then give him great power. "The will of the people" is expressed in their wise choice of a leader; then, for the sake of efficiency (distrust of committee!) the leader is trusted to vindicate the people's choice.

This interpretation was used by various Napoleons in France, to the extent that they then proceeded to dissolve the democratically elected body that gave them power!

(Oh, gosh! Did I actually just say that! I hope certain people aren't scanning sites like these. I don't think they need any more ideas on how to emasculate democracy! )

I guess it needs to be pointed out that the veto can, in theory, be overturned - so it fits with the idea of 'checks and balances' more than 'absolute monarchy'.

(On the veto in the news at the moment, wouldn't the Democrats have had a collective heart-attack if Bush hadn't veoed the bill? From the moment it passed, everything in Iraq would have become their fault.)

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
What was the thinking of the writers of the US constitution when they allowed the President to refuse to sign a bill into law, and so prevent its enactment,notwithstanding that the bill had the support of up to a two thirds majority in the lower houses ?

My first thought is that the 2/₃ gives the President the benefit of any doubt. A simple majority could change things counter to the big picture he's painting, which could be a very good thing. (Or a bad thing, but remember that, in most cases, he/she is the electorial victor)

quote:

Originally posted by Kendor:

My first thought is that the 2/₃ gives the President the benefit of any doubt. A simple majority could change things counter to the big picture he's painting, which could be a very good thing.

Big picture? So why didn't the writers go the whole hog and let the President force through a bill which had failed by a small majority? After all, if he alone knows the 'big picture' he should be allowed to run counter to Congress whenever it 'makes a mistake', not just when it votes for a bill

More seriously, the President is constitutionally bound to give his reasons, in writing, when he refuses to sign a bill into law. This suggests that the writers had in mind that the reasons could be found invalid by somebody and action taken.Otherwise the provision is pointless. He could give the most whimsical of reasons or reasons that were patently nonsensical or 'insane' yet the bill would still fail. His word would be final whatever he wrote.

So is the expectation that Congress, faced with such a false response, could resubmit the bill, this time with a two-thirds majority because Congress was then swayed to having more members to support the bill ? Or is it that the Supreme Court could intervene to declare the refusal unconstitutional in such circumstances? Or is the only remedy to treat any bizarre or irrational behaviour, in refusing to sign, as grounds for impeaching the President?

quote:

So why didn't the writers go the whole hog and let the President force through a bill which had failed by a small majority?

Much of the Constitution reads as a check against the power to enact changes lightly. From that viewpoint, a veto makes sense, but the ability you propose does not.



However, the whole "big picture" / benefit of the doubt going to the president makes little sense to me, considering the reluctance of the framers to give the presidency much power.

quote:

This suggests that the writers had in mind that the reasons could be found invalid by somebody and action taken.Otherwise the provision is pointless.

I don't think it suggests any such thing. What it suggests to me is that the framers thought the President should provide his reasons so that the Congress could consider them in its decision on whether to override the veto.

if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

A stage of "hanging on", waiting for the next super 911 for another war.

How can Bush has US troops stay in Iraq? When he has excuse of "maintain security" there. That's why US and Israel intelligence and pentagon manipulate Al Qaida and insurgence and death squad to create a riot over there.

Why Bush wants a surge when "civil war" is created by himself? Remember the time he needs surge was the time when he plans to attack Iran. He needs more troop for the Iran war.

The Capital Hill resolution is only a show to convince American people they are in "democracy". Does it do anything on Bush? No. He still has troops added up in Iraq. They hang on at a "veto". All the players now are waiting for is another super 911 attack. Once that happens, Bush again will be a hero and Americans will lose more money and lives and civil rights to that Inside group.