It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush makes history!!!!! Never has he vetoed a bill.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
www.csmonitor.com...

5 years straight without vetoing a freaking bill.


WASHINGTON – Like pardons and executive orders, vetoes are among the cherished privileges of the Oval Office. Ike liked them. So did presidents Truman and Cleveland - and both Roosevelts.
But apparently not George W. Bush. In fact, well into the fifth year of his presidency, he has yet to issue a single veto.

It's a streak unmatched in modern American history, one that throws into question traditional notions of checks and balances.

Although the streak could end next month - Mr. Bush is threatening a veto if Congress eases his restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research - the Bush era thus far underscores a historically high-water mark of collegial cooperation between Congress and the White House, experts say.

"We're pretty close to a parliamentary government," says G. Calvin Mackenzie, professor of government at Colby College in Watervillle, Maine, referring to Congress's close alignment with the executive branch. "We don't have much recent history with that."

Bush, however, hasn't even used the veto on legislation he deemed unconstitutional, such as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform he signed in 2002. That can be read as a sign of weakness, says Matthew Spalding, an expert on American political history at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. "Veto power has withered away from disuse."



Others take the opposite view. "Presidents who use the veto a lot are weak," says Bruce Altschuler, a professor of political science at Oswego State University of New York, noting Gerald Ford's time in office.

"More-successful presidents use it as a negotiation tool. When Bush has gone to Congress with [veto] threats, he has been effective," he notes.

Still, Bush may have to rely on the veto in years ahead because presidential power typically wanes in a second term. "A president's second term is like an hour glass with the sand running out," says Stephen Hess, professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University in Washington.

Already, Bush has struggled to marshal his party troops behind plans to partially privatize Social Security.

A test of GOP unity could come next month, when Congress will consider a move to relax Bush's limits on federal funding for stem-cell research. Senate majority leader Bill Frist - who is believed to be eyeing a presidential run in 2008 - announced a break with the president just before the August recess last week, a sign that fissures in the Republican bedrock are already appearing.

"The veto is always there; it's the paddle on the wall," says Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. "Everybody knows it's there. That gives the president a lot of power, no matter the alignment."


it shows he is willing to compromise or at least try to persuade his party members to join his side. also Democrats he will try to make a compromise that will please both sides. this shows that he aint willing to kill the whole bill that would make both sides have to start all over again. also it shows he is not the type of guy who use that type of power.

sorry i forgot to post the link.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by deltaboy]


[edit on 16-8-2005 by deltaboy]




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Or, perhaps it shows his lack of interest in, or understanding of, the bills he has the power to veto. Remember Fareihnheit 9/11?: "Nobody actually reads the bills".

Besides, Bush seems far more concerned with foreign policy than with domestic affairs.

Edit: Doesn't the Republican party have a majority in congress and in the senate anyway? If so how many votes are likely to go against Bush's opinion?

And one final point must be considered...maybe he actually believes in democratic principles and as such, chooses not to use his veto?


[edit on 1-9-2005 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

Besides, Bush seems far more concerned with foreign policy than with domestic affairs.

Edit: Doesn't the Republican party have a majority in congress and in the senate anyway? If so how many votes are likely to go against Bush's opinion?



Bingo!!!!!!!! you have it very nice put on that post.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Exactly, how many bills passed by the senate/house are going to be against Bush's view? No point in Vetoing if they are all in your favor.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Exactly. It's extremely rare to keep the majority during mid-term elections, but he did. Strongly. Most things are going his way, and only recently have a few people broken from his 'lead."

Besides, he could just leave them on his desk, and that's that.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
It's because he's had a Republican Congress during his entire presidency (except the Senate for 2 yrs due to defection).

He has promised to veto stem cell research funding if that passes though.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Very seldom get to exersize a veto when you have the majority in both houses. Bills get "vetoed" befor ethey even hit his desk




top topics



 
0

log in

join