Veto

A veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation. A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States of America) can block any resolution, or it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate will override a Presidential veto of legislation.[1] A veto may give power only to stop changes (thus allowing its holder to protect the status quo), like the US legislative veto, or to also adopt them (an "amendatory veto"), like the legislative veto of the Indian President, which allows him to propose amendments to bills returned to the Parliament for reconsideration.

The concept of a veto body originated with the Roman consuls and tribunes. Either of the two consuls holding office in a given year could block a military or civil decision by the other; any tribune had the power to unilaterally block legislation passed by the Roman Senate.[2]

Roman veto

The institution of the veto, known to the Romans as the intercessio, was adopted by the Roman Republic in the 6th century BC to enable the tribunes to protect the mandamus interests of the plebs (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the patricians, who dominated the Senate. A tribune's veto did not prevent the senate from passing a bill, but meant that it was denied the force of law. The tribunes could also use the veto to prevent a bill from being brought before the plebeian assembly. The consuls also had the power of veto, as decision-making generally required the assent of both consuls. If one disagreed, either could invoke the intercessio to block the action of the other. The veto was an essential component of the Roman conception of power being wielded not only to manage state affairs but to moderate and restrict the power of the state's high officials and institutions.[2]

Westminster systems

In Westminster systems and most constitutional monarchies, the power to veto legislation by withholding the Royal Assent is a rarely used reserve power of the monarch. In practice, the Crown follows the convention of exercising its prerogative on the advice of its chief advisor, the prime minister.

Australia

Since the Statute of Westminster (1931), the United Kingdom Parliament may not repeal any Act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on the grounds that is repugnant to the laws and interests of the United Kingdom.[3] Other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations (not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia), such as Canada and New Zealand, are likewise affected. However, according to the Australian Constitution (sec. 59), the Queen may veto a bill that has been given royal assent by the Governor-General within one year of the legislation being assented to.[3] This power has never been used. The Australian Governor-General himself or herself has, in theory, power to veto, or more technically, withhold assent to, a bill passed by both houses of the Australian Parliament, and contrary to the advice of the prime minister.[4] This may be done without consulting the sovereign as per Section 58 of the constitution:

When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure. The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.[5]

This reserve power is however, constitutionally arguable, and it is difficult to foresee an occasion when such a power would need to be exercised. It is possible that a Governor-general might so act if a bill passed by the Parliament was in violation of the Constitution.[6] One might argue, however, that a government would be hardly likely to present a bill which is so open to rejection. Many of the viceregal reserve powers are untested, because of the brief constitutional history of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the observance of the convention that the head of state acts upon the advice of his or her chief minister. The power may also be used in a situation where the parliament, usually a hung parliament, passes a bill without the blessing of the executive. The governor general on the advice of the executive could withhold consent from the bill thereby preventing its passage into law.

With regard to the six governors of the states which are federated under the Australian Commonwealth, a somewhat different situation exists. Until the Australia Act 1986, each state was constitutionally dependent upon the British Crown directly. Since 1986, however, they are fully independent entities, although the Queen still appoints governors on the advice of the state head of government, the premier. So the Crown may not veto (nor the UK Parliament overturn) any act of a state governor or state legislature. Paradoxically, the states are more independent of the Crown than the federal government and legislature.[7] State constitutions determine what role a governor plays. In general the governor exercises the powers the sovereign would have, including the power to withhold the Royal Assent.

Canada

According to the Constitution Act, 1867, the Queen in Counsel (in practice the Cabinet of the United Kingdom) may instruct the Governor General to withhold the Queen's assent, allowing the sovereign two years to disallow the bill, thereby vetoing the law in question. This was last used in 1873, and the power was effectively nullified by the Balfour Declaration of 1926.

Provincial viceroys, called "Lieutenants Governor" (plural) are able to reserve Royal Assent to provincial bills for consideration and possible disallowance by the Federal Cabinet; this clause was last invoked in 1961 by the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan.[8]

India

In India, the president has three veto powers, i.e. absolute, suspension & pocket. The president can send the bill back to parliament for changes, which constitutes a limited veto that can be overridden by a simple majority. But the Bill reconsidered by the parliament becomes a law with or without the assents of President after 14 days. The president can also take no action indefinitely on a bill, sometimes referred to as a pocket veto. The president can refuse to assent, which constitutes an absolute veto.[9][10]

Spain

In Spain, Section 91 of the Constitution provides that the King shall give his assent to laws passed by the General Courts within 15 days after their final passing by them. The absence of the royal assent, although not constitutionally provided, would mean the bill did not become a part of the law. Section 90 of the Constitution states that "Within two months after receiving the text, the Senate may, by a message stating the reasons for it, adopt a veto or approve amendments thereto. The veto must be adopted by overall majority."

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the royal veto ("withholding Royal Assent") was last exercised in 1708 by Queen Anne with the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.

The House of Lords used to have an effective power of veto by refusing to concur in bills adopted by the House of Commons. However, reform first by a Liberal government and then by a Labour government has limited its powers. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 reduced its powers: they can now only amend and delay legislation. They can delay legislation for up to one year. Under the 1911 Act, money bills (those concerning finance) cannot be delayed, and under the Salisbury Convention, the Lords, by convention, cannot delay any bills set out in the governing party's manifesto.

United States

Constitutional procedure

Proposed legislation (a bill) that is passed by both houses of Congress is presented to the President, in his capacity as head of the U.S. federal government. Likewise, legislation passed by both houses of a U.S. state legislature (or by Nebraska's unicameral legislature) are presented to the state governor.

If the President or governor approves of the bill, he signs it into law. According to Article 1. Section 7 of the Constitution,[11] if the President does not approve of the bill and chooses not to sign, he may return it unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session.

The President is constitutionally required to state any objections to the bill in writing, and the Congress is required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. Returning the unsigned bill to Congress constitutes a veto.

If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds vote in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and the President chooses to sign it.[12] Historically, the Congress overrides the Presidential veto 7% of the time.[13]

A bill becomes law without the President's signature if he does not sign it within the ten days allotted, unless there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns. If Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed during which the President might have signed the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used informally, is called a pocket veto.

The overall process is largely the same in the U.S. states.

Veto statement / veto message

Both the President of the United States and U.S. state governors usually issue a veto statement or veto message that provides their reasons for vetoing a measure when returning it to Congress or the state legislature, as required by the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, and by custom.[14][15][16] Those statements do not have precedential value, although their reasoning may be respected within the Executive Branch, and can contribute to the American constitutional tradition.[16] However, unlike a presidential signing statement, a veto statement does not carry much direct weight in the American legal system, because of its function: if Congress fails to override the veto, the bill and veto become legally irrelevant, but if the override succeeds, the veto message is not considered during subsequent executive implementation or judicial interpretation of the law.[15]

The President or the state governor may sign the veto statement at a signing ceremony, often with media present, particularly for measures that they wish to disapprove of in a very public fashion.[17][18][19]

Modifications declared unconstitutional

In 1983, the Supreme Court had struck down the one-house legislative veto, on separation of powers grounds and on grounds that the action by one house of Congress violated the Constitutional requirement of bicameralism. The case was INS v. Chadha, concerning a foreign exchange student in Ohio who had been born in Kenya but whose parents were from India. Because he was not born in India, he was not an Indian citizen. Because his parents were not Kenyan citizens, he was not Kenyan. Thus, he had nowhere to go when his student visa expired because neither country would take him, so he overstayed his visa and was ordered to show cause why he should not be deported from the United States.[20]

The Immigration and Nationality Act was one of many acts of Congress passed since the 1930s, which contained a provision allowing either house of that legislature to nullify decisions of agencies in the executive branch simply by passing a resolution. In this case, Chadha's deportation was suspended and the House of Representatives passed a resolution overturning the suspension, so that the deportation proceedings would continue. This, the Court held, amounted to the House of Representatives passing legislation without the concurrence of the Senate, and without presenting the legislation to the President for consideration and approval (or veto). Thus, the Constitutional principle of bicameralism and the separation of powers doctrine were disregarded in this case, and this legislative veto of executive decisions was struck down.

In 1996, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. This act allowed the President to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures from appropriations bills instead of vetoing the entire bill and sending it back to the Congress. However, this line-item veto was immediately challenged by members of Congress who disagreed with it. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to declare the line-item veto unconstitutional. In Clinton v. City of New York (524 U.S. 417 (1998)), the Court found the language of the Constitution required each bill presented to the President to be either approved or rejected as a whole. An action by which the President might pick and choose which parts of the bill to approve or not approve amounted to the President acting as a legislator instead of an executive and head of state—and particularly as a single legislator acting in place of the entire Congress—thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine.[21] Prior to being declared unconstitutional, President Clinton had applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[22][23]

In 2006, Senator Bill Frist introduced the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 in the United States Senate. Rather than provide for an actual legislative veto, however, the procedure created by the Act provides that, if the President should recommend rescission of a budgetary line item from a budget bill he previously signed into law—a power he already possesses pursuant to U.S. Const. Article II—the Congress must vote on his request within ten days. Because the legislation that is the subject of the President's request (or "Special Message", in the language of the bill) was already enacted and signed into law, the vote by the Congress would be ordinary legislative action, not any kind of veto—whether line-item, legislative or any other sort. The House passed this measure, but the Senate never considered it, so the bill expired and never became law.[24]

In 2009, Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain introduced legislation of a limited version of the line-item veto. This bill would give the president the power to withdraw earmarks in new bills by sending the bill back to Congress minus the line-item vetoed earmark. Congress would then vote on the line-item vetoed bill with a majority vote under fast track rules to make any deadlines the bill had.[25][26][27]

Early history

Intent of the Framers

During the Constitutional Convention, the veto was routinely referred to as a 'revisionary power'.[28]

The Veto was constructed not as an absolute veto, but rather with limits, such as that Congress can override a veto, and that the President's objections must be stated in writing.[29] These limits would have been important in the minds of the Founders, given that in Britain the monarch retained an absolute veto (though by this time the power had become a formality). Further, as Elbridge Gerry explained in the final days of the Convention: "The primary object of the revisionary check of the President is not to protect the general interest, but to defend his own department."[30]

During the Constitutional Convention the framers overwhelmingly rejected three proposals for an absolute veto.[31][32]

Under the Articles and Constitution

The Presidents of the Continental Congress (1774–81) did not have the power of veto. The President could not veto an act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781–89), but he possessed certain recess and reserve powers that were not necessarily available to the predecessor President of the Continental Congress. It was only with the enactment of the United States Constitution (drafted 1787; ratified 1788; fully effective since 4 March 1789) that veto power was conferred upon the person titled "President of the United States".

The presidential veto power was first exercised on 5 April 1792 when President George Washington vetoed a bill outlining a new apportionment formula.[33] Apportionment described how Congress divides seats in the House of Representatives among the states based on the US census figures. President Washington's stated reasons for vetoing the bill were (1) that it did not apportion representatives according to states' relative populations and (2) that it gave eight states more than 1 representative per 30,000 residents, in violation of the Constitution.[34]

The Congress first overrode a presidential veto (passed a bill into law notwithstanding the President's objections) on 3 March 1845.[35]

U.S. states, veto powers, and override authority

All U.S. states also have a provision by which legislative decisions can be vetoed by the governor. In addition to the ability to veto an entire bill as a "package," many states allow the governor to exercise specialty veto authority to strike or revise portions of a bill without striking the whole bill.

Amendatory veto
Allows a governor to amend bills that have been passed by the legislature. Revisions are subject to confirmation or rejection by the legislature.[36]
Line item veto
Allows a governor to remove specific sections of a bill (usually only spending bills) that has been passed by the legislature. Deletions can be overridden by the legislature.[36]
Pocket veto
Any bill presented to a governor after a session has ended must be signed to become law. A governor can refuse to sign such a bill and it will expire. Such vetoes cannot be overridden.[36]
Reduction veto
Allows a governor to reduce the amounts budgeted for spending items. Reductions can be overridden by the legislature.[36]
Package veto
Allows a governor to veto the entire bill. Package vetoes can be overridden by the legislature.[36]
Veto power and override authority by state[36][37]
State Veto powers Veto override standard
Alabama Amendatory, Pocket, Line Item, Package Majority elected
Alaska Reduction, Line Item, Package Regular bills: 2/3 elected; Budget bills: 3/4 elected
Arizona Line Item, Package 2/3 elected (Misc items have 3/4 elected standard)
Arkansas Line Item, Package Majority elected
California Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Colorado Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Connecticut Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Delaware Pocket, Line Item, Package 3/5 elected
Florida Line Item, Package 2/3 present
Georgia Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Hawaii Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Idaho Line Item, Package 2/3 present
Illinois Amendatory, Reduction, Line Item (spending only), Package 3/5 elected for package, majority elected for reduction/line item, majority elected required to affirm amendments[38]
Indiana Package Majority elected
Iowa Pocket, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Kansas Line Item, Package 2/3 membership
Kentucky Line Item, Package Majority elected
Louisiana Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Maine Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Maryland Line Item, Package 3/5ths elected[39]
Massachusetts Amendatory, Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected; normal majority required to accept amendments[40]
Michigan Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3rds elected[41]
Minnesota Pocket, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected – min. 90 House, 45 Senate
Mississippi Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Missouri Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Montana Amendatory, Line Item, Package 2/3 present
Nebraska Reduction, Line Item, Package 3/5 elected
Nevada Package 2/3 elected
New Hampshire Package 2/3 present
New Jersey Amendatory, Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
New Mexico Line Item, Package, Pocket 2/3 present
New York Pocket, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
North Carolina Package 3/5 elected
North Dakota Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Ohio Line Item, Package 3/5 elected
Oklahoma Pocket, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Oregon Line Item, Package 2/3 present
Pennsylvania Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Rhode Island Line Item, Package 3/5 present
South Carolina Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
South Dakota Amendatory, Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Tennessee Reduction, Line Item, Package Constitutional majority (Majority elected)[42]
Texas Line Item, Package 2/3 present
Utah Line Item, Package 2/3 elected
Vermont Pocket, Package 2/3 present
Virginia Amendatory, Line Item, Package 2/3 present (must include majority of elected members)
Washington Line Item, Package 2/3 present
West Virginia Reduction, Line Item, Package Majority elected
Wisconsin Amendatory, Reduction, Line Item, Package 2/3 present
Wyoming Line Item, Package 2/3 elected

European republican systems

Presidential veto

Many European republics allow some form of presidential veto on legislation, which may vary, according to their constitutional form or by convention. These include France, Italy, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Hungary.

The President of Austria has no veto power, but signs bills into law.

The President of Iceland may refuse to sign a bill, which is then put to referendum. This right was not exercised until 2004, by President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who has since refused to sign two other bills. The first bill was withdrawn, but the latter two resulted in referenda.

The President of France has only a very limited form of suspensive veto: when presented with a law, he or she can request another reading of it by the Assembly, but only once per law. Aside from it, the President can only refer bills to the Constitutional Council.

The President of Hungary has two options to veto a bill: submit it to the Constitutional Court if he suspects that it violates the constitution or send it back to the Parliament and ask for a second debate and vote on the bill. If the Court rules that the bill is constitutional or it is passed by the Parliament again, respectively, the President must sign it.

The President of Ireland may refuse to grant assent to a bill that he or she considers to be unconstitutional, after consulting the Council of State; in this case, the bill is referred to the Supreme Court, which finally determines the matter. This is the most widely used reserve power. The President may also, on request of a majority of Seanad Éireann (the upper house of parliament) and a third of Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament), after consulting the Council of State, decline to sign a bill "of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained" in an ordinary referendum or a new Dáil reassembling after a general election held within eighteen months. This latter power has never been used because the government of the day almost always commands a majority of the Seanad, preventing the third of the Dáil that usually makes up the opposition from combining with it.

The President of Italy may request a second deliberation of a bill passed by Parliament before it is promulgated. This is a very weak form of veto as the Parliament can override the veto by an ordinary majority. The same provision exists in France and Latvia. While such a limited veto cannot thwart the will of a determined parliamentary majority, it may have a delaying effect and may cause the parliamentary majority to reconsider the matter. The President of Republic can also call a new election for parliament. He can also veto minister nominations, as happened in 2018.

The President of Estonia may effectively veto a law adopted by Estonian parliament by refusing to proclaim it and demanding a new debate and decision. The parliament, in its turn, may override this veto by passing the law unamended for the second time (a simple majority is enough). In this case the President is obliged to proclaim the law or to request the Supreme Court of Estonia to declare the law unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules that the law does not violate the Constitution, the President may not object any more and is obliged to finally proclaim the law.

The President of Latvia may suspend a bill for a period of two months, during which it may be referred to the people in a referendum if a certain number of signatures are gathered. This is potentially a much stronger form of veto, as it enables the President to appeal to the people against the wishes of the Parliament and Government.

The President of Poland may submit a bill to the Constitutional Tribunal if he suspects that bill is unconstitutional or send it back to the Sejm for a second voting. If the Tribunal says that the bill is constitutional or if Sejm passes it by at least three-fifths of the votes, the President must sign the bill.

The President of Portugal may refuse to sign a bill or refer it, or parts of it, to the Constitutional Court. If the President refuses to sign bill without it being declared unconstitutional, the Assembly of the Republic (parliament) may pass it again, in which case it becomes law.

The President of Ukraine may refuse to sign a bill and return it to Parliament with his proposals. If the parliament agrees on his proposals, the President must sign the bill. Parliament may overturn a veto by a two-thirds majority. If Parliament overturns his veto, the President must sign the bill within 10 days.

Liberum veto

In the constitution Poland or the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th and 18th centuries, there was an institution called the liberum veto. All bills had to pass the Sejm or "Seimas" (Parliament) by unanimous consent, and if any legislator voted nay on anything, this not only vetoed that bill but also dissolved that legislative session itself. The concept originated in the idea of "Polish democracy" as any Pole of noble extraction was considered as good as any other, no matter how low or high his material condition might be. It was never exercised, however, under the rule of the strong Polish royal dynasties, which came to an end in the mid-17th century. These were followed by an elective kingship. As might be expected, the more and more frequent use of this veto power paralyzed the power of the legislature and, combined with a string of weak figurehead kings, led ultimately to the partitioning and the dissolution of the Polish state in the late 18th century.

Philippines

The President of the Philippines may refuse to sign a bill, sending the bill back to the house where it originated along with his objections. Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. The president may also veto specific provisions on money bills without affecting other provisions on the same bill. The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill. Once the thirty-day period expires, the bill becomes law as if the president had signed it.

See also

References

  1. ^ Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
  2. ^ a b Spitzer, Robert J. (1988). The presidential veto: touchstone of the American presidency. SUNY Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-88706-802-7.
  3. ^ a b "Documenting Democracy". Foundingdocs.gov.au. 9 October 1942. Archived from the original on 1 June 2011. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
  4. ^ Hamer, David (2002) [1994, University of Canberra]. "Curiously ill-defined – the role of the head of state". Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia?. Canberra: Australian Government – Department of the Senate. Retrieved 1 November 2015.
  5. ^ "Chapter I. The Parliament. Part V – Powers of the Parliament, Section 58". Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. Parliament of Australia: Department of the Senate. Archived from the original on 14 October 2011. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
  6. ^ Read, Jolly, ed. (May 2000). "Powers of the Governor". Dynamics in Government: A guide to the workings of government in Western Australia. Constitutional Centre of Western Australia. Archived from the original on 6 April 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  7. ^ Mediation Communications, Level 3, 414 Bourke Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Phone 9602 2992, www.mediacomms.com.au. "Government House". Governor.vic.gov.au. Archived from the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Bastedo, Frank Lindsay, Encyclopedia of Saskatachewan
  9. ^ Sharma, B.k. (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. 145. ISBN 978-81-203-3246-1.
  10. ^ Gupta, V. P. (26 August 2002). "The President's role". Times of India. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
  11. ^ Kosar, Kevin R. (18 July 2008), Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview (PDF)
  12. ^ "US Senate Glossary". US Senate Glossary. US Senate. Retrieved 2 December 2013.
  13. ^ Sollenberger, Mitchel A. (7 April 2004). "Congressional Overrides of Presidential Vetoes" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  14. ^ Manual of the Legislature of New Jersey. 210. 2003. pp. 358, 359.
  15. ^ a b Ackerman, Bruce (2011). The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Harvard University Press. p. 222. ISBN 9780674058392.
  16. ^ a b Brest, Paul; Levinson, Sanford; Balkin, Jack M.; Amar, Akhil Reed; Siegel, Reva B. (2018). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. p. 215. ISBN 9781454897613.
  17. ^ 1989 Congressional Record, Vol. 135, Page 13591 "The President should have had the veto signing ceremony at the local gas station." [1]
  18. ^ "Penn State Law Review". 2006: 545. Governor Ehrlich stated at the veto signing ceremony that...
  19. ^ Ward, Alex (15 March 2019). "The New Zealand shooter called immigrants "invaders." Hours later, so did Trump". Vox.com. Retrieved 15 March 2019. On Friday, Trump issued the first veto of his presidency to override a congressional blockade of the national emergency he declared at America’s southern border. During the veto signing ceremony, Trump explained why he felt a national emergency was warranted to stop migrants from entering the US.
  20. ^ Williams, Lena (19 June 1985). "Faces Behind Famous Cases". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  21. ^ "Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union". Transcript. The American Presidency Project. 24 January 1995. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
  22. ^ "Supreme Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto". CNN. 25 June 1998. Archived from the original on 8 October 2008.
  23. ^ "History of Line Item Veto Notices". National Archives and Records Administration.
  24. ^ 109th Congress (2006) (7 March 2006). "H.R. 4890 (109th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved 15 October 2018. Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006
  25. ^ "Feingold, McCain, Ryan Introduce Line-item Veto to Curb Wasteful Spending". YouTube. Video of reintroduction of Line Item Veto Bill March 4, 2009
  26. ^ "Feingold, McCain, Ryan Introduce Line-item Veto to Curb Wasteful Spending". United States Senate. 4 March 2009. Archived from the original on 5 January 2011.
  27. ^ "Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs". The White House. 25 February 2009.
  28. ^ Madison, James (1787). "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention".
  29. ^ Spitzer, Robert J. (1988). The Presidential Veto. New York: State University of New York Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-0887068027.
  30. ^ Madison, James (12 September 1787). "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention".
  31. ^ Pfiffner, James P. (2009). Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. pp. 210–220. ISBN 081570335X.
  32. ^ May, Christopher N. (1998). Presidential Defiance of "unconstitutional" Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative. Greenwood Press. pp. 876–881. ISBN 031330064X.
  33. ^ Caulfield, Michael (November 2010). "Apportioning Representatives in the United States Congress - Jefferson's Method of Apportionment". Convergence. Mathematical Association of America.
  34. ^ Washington, George (5 April 1792). "Veto Message of George Washington April 5, 1792" (Letter). Letter to House of Representatives. New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  35. ^ "Presidential Vetoes, 1789 to 1988" (PDF). The U.S. Government Printing Office. February 1992. Retrieved 2 March 2009.
  36. ^ a b c d e f Vock, Daniel. "Govs enjoy quirky veto power". pewstates.org. Retrieved 24 April 2007.
  37. ^ The Book of the States 2010 (PDF). The Council of State Governments. 2010. pp. 140–142.
  38. ^ Constitution of Illinois (1970) Article IV, Section 9
  39. ^ Constitution of Maryland, Article II, Sec. 17(a)
  40. ^ Constitution of Massachusetts, Amendments, Article XC.
  41. ^ Constitution of Michigan (1963), Article IV § 33
  42. ^ Tennessee Constitution, art. III, sec. 18

External links

  • "Vetoes". Virtual Reference Desk. United States Senate.
Big Brother (U.S. TV series)

Big Brother is a television reality game show based on an originally Dutch TV series of the same name created by producer John de Mol in 1997. The series follows a diverse group of contestants, known as HouseGuests, who are living together in a custom-built home under constant surveillance. The HouseGuests are completely isolated from the outside world and can have no communication with those not in the house. The contestants are competing for a $500,000 grand prize, with weekly competitions and evictions determining who will win the show. The series takes its name from the character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The series launched on July 5, 2000, to a successful start, though ratings and critical reaction continued to grow increasingly negative. This led to the second season being a revamp of the show, featuring a more competition-based challenge. The series has since continued to be a hit for CBS, and is the second longest-running adaptation of the series to date, after the Spanish adaptation.

The series currently has two spin-offs: Big Brother: Over the Top, which was the first reality game show to air exclusively on a streaming platform airing in Fall 2016 on CBS's streaming service, CBS All Access; and Celebrity Big Brother, which aired on CBS in February 2018.CBS also renewed the series for a 19th and 20th season. The 19th season premiered on June 28, 2017, and the 20th season premiered on June 27, 2018.As of September 26, 2018, 706 episodes of Big Brother have aired.

Big Brother 17 (U.S. season)

Big Brother 17 is the seventeenth season of the American reality television series Big Brother. The season premiered on June 24, 2015, on CBS, and once again was a two-night launch with the following episode airing on June 25, 2015. The season ended on September 23, 2015, with a 90-minute season finale following the fall season premiere of Survivor: Cambodia. The season featured the highest number of HouseGuests to date with 17 HouseGuests in total. On September 23, Steve Moses won the game in a 6-3 vote against Liz Nolan.

Executive communication

In the United States federal government, executive communication is a message sent to the Senate by the President or other executive branch official. An example of executive communication is a presidential veto message.

France and the United Nations

The French Republic is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The nation originally joined the UN as the Provisional Government of the French Republic (PGFR) before being succeeded by the French Fourth Republic in 1946, however, after a series of crises, the French Fourth Republic collapsed. A constitutional referendum was held on 28 September 1958; 82.6% voted for constitution for the French Fifth Republic, which succeeded the seat of the former Fourth Republic, including its permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council.

Heckler's veto

Heckler's veto is an American free speech term describing situations in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced.

In the legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs when the speaker's right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration. The term was coined by University of Chicago professor of law Harry Kalven.Colloquially, the term is used to describe situations where hecklers or demonstrators silence a speaker without intervention of the law.

Jus exclusivae

Jus exclusivae (Latin for "right of exclusion"; sometimes called the papal veto) was the right claimed by several Catholic monarchs of Europe to veto a candidate for the papacy. The French monarch, the Spanish monarch, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Emperor of Austria claimed this right at various times, making known to a papal conclave, through a crown-cardinal, that the monarch deemed a particular candidate for the papacy objectionable.

Liberum veto

The liberum veto (Latin for "free veto") was a parliamentary device in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a form of unanimity voting rule that allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and to nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting, Sisto activitatem! (Latin: "I stop the activity!") or Nie pozwalam! (Polish: "I do not allow!"). The rule was in place from the mid-17th century to the late 18th century in the Sejm's parliamentary deliberations. It was based on the premise that since all Polish noblemen were equal, every measure that came before the Sejm had to be passed unanimously. The liberum veto was a key part of the political system of the Commonwealth, strengthening democratic elements and checking royal power and went against the European-wide trend of having a strong executive (absolute monarchy).

Many historians hold that the liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system, particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings, and the Commonwealth's eventual destruction in the partitions of Poland and foreign occupation, dominance and manipulation of Poland for the next 200 years or so. Piotr Stefan Wandycz wrote that the "liberum veto had become the sinister symbol of old Polish anarchy". In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms were held, about a third failing to pass any legislation, mostly because of the liberum veto. The expression Polish parliament in many European languages originated from the apparent paralysis.

Line-item veto

The line-item veto, or partial veto, is a special form of veto power that authorizes a chief executive to reject particular provisions of a bill enacted by a legislature without vetoing the entire bill. Many countries have different standards for invoking the line-item veto, if it exists at all. Each country or state has its own particular requirement for overriding a line-item veto.

List of United States presidential vetoes

The phrase presidential veto does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation approved by the Congress of the United States to be presented to the President of the United States for their approval. After that is done, there are several scenarios in which a bill may or may not be enacted into law.

The president may sign the bill within 10 days (excluding Sundays). This enacts the bill into law.

The president may return the bill to Congress with a statement of objections within 10 days (excluding Sundays). This is a "veto."

If the president vetoes a bill, the president's objections shall be considered by the Congress. Each house may vote to override the president's veto. If 2/3 of each house agree to override the president's veto, the bill is enacted into law.

The president may do nothing, and after 10 days (excluding Sundays) if Congress has not yet adjourned, the bill is enacted into law.

The president may do nothing, and if Congress adjourns before the 10th day (excluding Sundays), the bill is not enacted into law. This is known as "pocket veto". (It can't be overridden)The list below contains many of the bills vetoed and pocket vetoed by Presidents.

Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Initiative

The Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Initiative is a state-wide referendum passed by Massachusetts voters in the 6 November 2018 mid-term election that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity. The vote upholds language which was already present in the state anti-discrimination statute, defeating an attempt to veto it by public referendum. It is the first state-wide anti-discrimination statute passed by referendum supporting transgender rights in the United States.

Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council

The permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (also known as the Permanent Five, Big Five, or P5) are the five states which the UN Charter of 1945 grants a permanent seat on the UN Security Council: China (formerly the Republic of China), France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries were all allies in World War II, which they won. They are also all nuclear weapons states. A total of 15 UN member states serve on the UNSC, the remainder of which are elected. Any one of the five permanent members have the power of veto, which enables them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of its level of international support.

Pocket veto

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver that allows a president or other official with veto power to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action (instead of affirmatively vetoing it).

Presentment Clause

The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the United States Constitution outlines federal legislative procedure by which bills originating in Congress become federal law in the United States.

Royal assent

Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature (either directly, or through an official acting on the monarch's behalf). In some jurisdictions, royal assent is equivalent to promulgation, while in others that is a separate step. Under a modern constitutional monarchy royal assent is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still, in theory, permit the monarch to withhold assent to laws (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to veto a law by withholding royal assent was once exercised often by European monarchs, such an occurrence has been very rare since the eighteenth century.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster for this purpose. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general (as the monarch's representative) merely signs a bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of their agreement to the bill.

Theological veto

The theological veto is the concept in philosophy of religion that philosophy and logic are impious and that God, not reason, is sovereign. This concept is held as true by some theists, especially religious fundamentalists.

The idea is derived from a belief that mankind is depraved, and its intellect is a flawed product of this fallenness. In this view conversion, not reason, is the way to the truth; preaching, not argument, is the way to persuade; and grace, not evidence is the way belief is confirmed. In this view, natural reason is so profoundly hostile to the divine that holding it above faith is tantamount to worshiping a sinful creature as an idol. Even the use of reason on behalf of faith is rejected under the theological veto, as it shows faithlessness. It presupposes by practice that faith can be benefited by reason.

United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN), charged with ensuring international peace and security, accepting new members to the United Nations and approving any changes to its charter. Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations and international sanctions as well as the authorization of military actions through resolutions – it is the only body of the United Nations with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states. The council held its first session on 17 January 1946.

Like the UN as a whole, the Security Council was created following World War II to address the failings of a previous international organization, the League of Nations, in maintaining world peace. In its early decades, the Security Council was largely paralyzed by the Cold War division between the US and USSR and their respective allies, though it authorized interventions in the Korean War and the Congo Crisis and peacekeeping missions in the Suez Crisis, Cyprus, and West New Guinea. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, UN peacekeeping efforts increased dramatically in scale, and the Security Council authorized major military and peacekeeping missions in Kuwait, Namibia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Security Council consists of fifteen members. The great powers that were the victors of World War II – the Soviet Union (now represented by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States – serve as the body's five permanent members. These can veto any substantive resolution, including those on the admission of new member states or nominees for the office of Secretary-General. In addition, the council has 10 non-permanent members, elected on a regional basis to serve a term of two years. The body's presidency rotates monthly among its members.

Resolutions of the Security Council are typically enforced by UN peacekeepers, military forces voluntarily provided by member states and funded independently of the main UN budget. As of 2016, 103,510 peacekeepers and 16,471 civilians were deployed on sixteen peacekeeping operations and one special political mission.

United Nations Security Council veto power

The United Nations Security Council "veto power" refers to the power of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) to veto any "substantive" resolution. A permanent member's abstention or absence does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted. This veto power does not apply to "procedural" votes, as determined by the permanent members themselves. A permanent member can also block the selection of a Secretary-General, although a formal veto is unnecessary since the vote is taken behind closed doors.

The unconditional veto possessed by the five governments has been seen by critics as the most undemocratic character of the UN. Critics also claim that veto power is the main cause for international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the United States refused to join the United Nations in 1945 unless it was given a veto. The absence of the United States from the League of Nations contributed to its ineffectiveness. Supporters of the veto power regard it as a promoter of international stability, a check against military interventions, and a critical safeguard against U.S. domination.

United States and the United Nations

The United States of America is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The United States is host to the headquarters of the United Nations, which includes the usual meeting place of the General Assembly in New York City, the seat of the Security Council and several bodies of the United Nations. The United States is the largest provider of financial contributions to the United Nations, providing 22 percent of the entire UN budget in 2017 (in comparison the next biggest contributor is Japan with almost 10 percent, while EU countries pay a total of above 30 percent). From July 2016 to June 2017, 28.6 percent of the budget used for peacekeeping operations was provided by the United States. The United States had a pivotal role in establishing the UN.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.