politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.