Veto power allows a governor or leader to reject parts of a bill before it becomes law. Most US state governors use this power, but Congress ruled it unconstitutional for President Clinton in 1996. Giving POTUS veto power could lead to fewer bills, but advocates argue it would reduce political “handling.” Opponents argue it gives too much power to the executive branch. 43 US states give veto power to their governors, with proponents arguing it promotes cooperation in state legislatures.
A veto element is the ability given to a governor or leader of a country to reject certain parts of a bill that comes before the leader is signed into law. This power is used extensively by most US state governors and is often requested by the President of the United States (POTUS). Congress briefly granted veto powers to President Clinton in 1996, but the ability to strike down parts of a bill was challenged by the courts and ruled unconstitutional. Those who oppose vetoing the entry argue that it gives the president and the executive branch of government too much power.
The reason vetoing the item remains such a hot topic of discussion is due to the predominantly two-party system in the US House and Senate. There are some Senators and Representatives who are Independents or who are elected under another party affiliation, but most of them are Democrats or Republicans. Since these two parties often represent opposite sides of the political spectrum, a nearly even split of the two parties in both houses can mean that some bills may never pass. In order to make it easier for a bill to pass, many political problems can occur, with various senators or representatives adding things to the bill that don’t really have much to do with it. A Senator may agree to support a bill, particularly if it allows him special funding for pet projects or creates other laws that he supports.
If POTUS were granted the ability to veto line items, much of this political “handling” would fall by the wayside. The president could approve the original bill and veto any special agreements concluded by a majority vote. Congress knows this well and knows that it would be much more difficult to win support for a bill if concessions could not be made to the other political party. Other members of Congress could grant any funding requests or other provisions of the bill, but there would be no guarantee from the president that he would approve such requests or provisions. In fact, POTUS probably wouldn’t approve of such requests, especially if they seemed at odds with its political goals.
Giving veto status to the POTUS could lead to very few bills, especially if the House or Senate has a near-even number of members or a majority of members of a single political party. For example, if the House is 75% Republican and the Senate is 75% Democrat, it would be extremely difficult to pass any bill that was considered biased in any way. It should be noted that sometimes members of political parties almost unanimously support the passage of a bill and do not vote along party lines.
On the other hand, there are 43 states in the US that give veto power over line items to their governors. Those who advocate giving POTUS this power suggest that governors tend not to abuse their authority and that laws are still made regularly in these states. Proponents also argue that this power requires greater cooperation in state legislatures to create laws that will not be subject to partial vetoes. Those opposed to giving this power to the POTUS counter argue that it is simply too much power for the executive branch of government to hold and allows the president to act autocratically rather than democratically.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
