The Veto Power wielded by the President of the United States of America has grown to be a symbol of the power enjoyed by the Executive. The Veto itself is a power often dramatized in the media as one that is only wielded in the most extreme of circumstances. It is a power that is often attacked by critics of a powerful executive as one that is the epitome of the excesses of the modern executive. Yet it is a power that has its core roots in the checks and balances of the ancient Roman Republic. The power of the Consul to veto one another’s decisions was hugely important to the success of the Roman Republic and the prevention of tyrants and despots in Rome. Which brings me to the first exploration of the Veto Power. …show more content…
Royal Assent is the requirement that in order for a bill to become law in the British Commonwealth of Nations the Monarch has to give said bill what is called royal assent. The Monarch has the ability to withhold royal assent from any bill he/she pleases to, thus preventing said bill from becoming law. This is in effect a veto. Though the power for the monarch to refuse royal assent to laws in Britain has not been used since 1708. It has been used repeatedly in regards to colonial assemblies and the overseas dominions of the British Crown. Most recently in 2001 in Australia the Monarch refused Royal Assent to a bill that the leaders in the Australian Parliament had requested be refused Royal Assent because of a technical issue with the bill. Other times it has been used to prevent bills that would restrict basic freedoms from becoming law. For example in 1937 Alberta, Royal Assent was refused for a bill that would have greatly restricted the freedom of the press along with nationalizing all the banks. In an American context the founding fathers of the United States stated in the Declaration of Independence, in reference to King George III "has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good [and] has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them." (Declaration of Independence,
The United State’s Constitution, the shortest written Constitution in the world, only has twenty-seven amendments, and now it is time to add another. The power of a presidential line-item veto was denied to the Clinton Administration in 1998, but with this last Congress being the least productive Congress ever, it is time to re-think the power distribution in the legislative process. In Congress, on average, only 10% of the bills proposed make their way through, and ever reach the President’s desk. In this modern day and age a bill, on average, is 3,105 words. When Congress was first created the idea was that each proposed legislation would be contained in one bill, now bills are comprised of various provisions. Which is why the power of the line-item veto would be beneficial to expand presidential authority. This line-item veto authority is the ability to cross out certain provisions while still being able to sign in to law the entire bill. This would be beneficial to the United States government, as an amendment that would allow the president to cut out unnecessary spending to in turn lower the national deficit. The United States government needs to pass an amendment to allow Presidents to use the line item veto.
For hundreds of years, politicians have searched for the perfect form of government to be the foundation onto which a strong and prosperous nation can be built. A Democracy is a form of government by the people. In a Democracy, a code of law is not required and the majority always rules. Similarly, in a Republic, the power of the government resides with the people. In addition, a Republic requires a code of law, which protects the minority by limiting the majority, and a system of checks and balances. In the New Nation era, the Sedition Act and the Revolution of the 1800s demonstrated the need for a code of law in order to prevent revolts. Furthermore, in the Jacksonian Era, Andrew Jackson’s abuse of power exhibited the importance of checks
“Give me liberty or give me death!” This statement from Patrick Henry’s “Speech to the Virginia Convention,” delivered to the House of Burgesses, has been quoted by many, becoming almost cliché. However, the declaration is truly understood by a select few. The unjust Stamp Act passed by the British crown in 1765, brought fame and notoriety to Henry as he spoke out against the unjust taxation without representation. Ten years later on the eve of revolution, Henry calls upon the Colonial government of which he is part, to act for the betterment of the people.
Congress and The Presidency Congress as a whole makes laws. When Bills are addressed they must meet the approval of both the House and the Senate in order to become a Law, and then the President can always veto it. Congress also deals with matters of public concern be it something that needs to be investigated or something that needs to be put before the public to raise awareness. Congress is made up of two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. Each is granted different powers and responsibilities.
From the inception of the Constitution, there has always been a power struggle between the President and Congress. In the beginning, Madison and the Jeffersonians were placed in a gridlock with Hamilton and his school of political philosophy. Andrew Jackson fought to extend the powers of the President, then Congress spent 50 years fighting to repeal the powers of the Executive. Abraham Lincoln refined Jacksonian presidential politics, then Congress impeached his successor, Andrew Johnson, for fear of another quasi -- tyrannical President. Even today, a Congress, whose majority is of the same party as the President, fights 24 hours a day to check the power of President George W. Bush. But why, and how? Inherent Power Struggles Within the Constitution: Article I, Section I -- "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" VS. Article II, Section I -- "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" Article II, Section II -- "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" - The Founders' ambiguous and contradicting language sets the stage for a power struggle between the Executive and the Legislative branches - Being that the Founders were political masterminds, they realized that unique circumstances would demand some deviations from the restraints that the Constitution places on both the Executive and the Legislature - Founders anticipated that during times of crisis', the nation would need ...
Yes, I think Congress has too much power. Because under the constitution, Congress has the most important power and that is to make/change laws. (The powers of Congress-http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp) In this paper I will explain to you how Congress has too much power by, it being split into two large bicameral legislatures, they have the power of impeachment, and they have the power to approve the spending of federal money.
The history behind the Separation of Powers is record as far back as ancient Greece.
particularly the Stamp Act. When the Stamp Act was repealed, King George flew into a rage.
...of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on the judiciary.
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
To explain, the president has little control with regard to current events and policy making, his wishes are ignored, and his hands are tied. With such circumstances, the president’s desires are viewed as, just that, desires, rather than commands. Unless of course he holds the power of persuasion. In order to reach political power and presidential achievement, the president must persuade other political actors his interests are theirs (Howell 243). Howell counter argues Neustadt, explaining the president exerts influence not by the power of persuasion, but by his unilateral powers. “The president can make all kinds of public policies without the formal consent of Congress”. The unilateral powers emerge from institutional advantages such as the structure, resources, and location within the system of separated powers. (Howell 246-247). By that Howell means, the president’s power does not derive from persuasion, but from simply being the
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
The United States government braces its power among three powerful branches, legislative, executive and judicial. These branches interact with one another to establish authority that is strong, yet equal to have power over the country. Each branch pursues certain responsibilities and duties to operate in an efficient and effective manner in which society upholds. The executive, legislative and judicial branches all interact amid each other to validate accuracy of the nation’s most powerful law of the land, the Constitution. It is important to know how these branches interact with each other to learn how a bill becomes a law. Reflecting on how the three branches promote a balance of power that is constructive to include the agendas and electoral roles that also plays a vast part in the government’s operation.
Straw, J, ‘Abolish the royal prerogative’, in A. Barnett Ed., Power and the throne; the monarch Debate (1994) London: Vintage, p. 129.