Veto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word 'veto' comes from Latin and literally means I forbid. It is used to denote that a certain party has the right to stop unilaterally a certain piece of legislation. In practice, the veto can be absolute (as in the U.N. Security Council, whose permanent members can block any resolution) or limited (as in the legislative process of the United States, where two-thirds of Congress can override the President's veto).
A veto gives power, possibly unlimited, to stop changes, but not to adopt them. The influence that the veto conveys to its holder is therefore directly proportional to the holder's conservatism, broadly defined. The more the holder likes the current state of affairs, the more useful the veto.
The veto originated with the Roman tribunes who had the power to unilaterally refuse legislation passed by the Roman Senate.[citation needed]
Contents |
[edit] United States
The word "veto" does not appear in the United States Constitution. Per U.S. Const., Article I, Section 7 all legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as head of state.
If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it. If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days (excluding Sundays) to the house of Congress in which it originated. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation.
If the Congress passes the bill by a two-thirds majority 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 he chooses to sign it.
A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are less than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto.
In 1996, the Congress passed and President 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. This line-item veto was immediately challenged by Members of Congress who disagreed with it. In 1998, the Supreme Court held that line item veto was unconstitutional. 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. (See Clinton v. City of New York, .)
In 2006, Senator William Frist introduced the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 in the United States Senate - but this is a misnomer. The procedure created by the Act merely 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. Art. II - the Congress must vote on his request within ten days. Insomuch as the legislation that be the question of the President's request (or "Special Message," in the language of the bill) will have already been enacted and signed into law, either by this president or a prior president, any action by the Congress would be ordinary legislative action, not any kind of veto - whether line-item or legislative or any other sort.
In 1982, the Supreme Court had struck down the one-house legislative veto, also 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.
The Immigration and Nationality Act was one of many acts of Congress passed since the 1930's, 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 violated in this case, and this legislative veto of executive decisions was struck down.
The Presidents of Continental Congress (1774 - 1781), of course, had no power of veto. Nor could the President veto an Act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781 - 1789), though he possessed certain recess and reserve powers that were not necessarily available to the predecessor President of Continental Congress. But with the enactment of America's second constitution, the United States Constitution (drafted 1787; ratified 1788; fully effective since 4 March 1789), veto power was conferred upon the person titled "President of the United States."
The presidential veto power was first exercised on April 5, 1792 when George Washington vetoed a bill designed to apportion representatives among the several states. The Congress first overrode a presidential veto - that is, passed a bill into law notwithstanding the President's objections - on March 3, 1845.[citations needed]
Most U.S. states also have a provision by which legislative decisions can be vetoed by the governor. Most states grant line-item veto power to the governor.
- See also: List of United States presidential vetoes
- See also: Line-item veto
[edit] Mexico
The Mexican President has a veto power very similar to that of the U.S. president. Yet a controversy arose in December 2004 when the President, Vicente Fox, vetoed the budget bill passed by the Chamber of Deputies. The controversy was based upon the asymmetric powers granted to the Senate by the 1917 Constitution: the budget bill, submitted by the President, is only considered by the chamber of Deputies, unlike ordinary legislation that needs to be approved by both chambers of Congress. The Mexican Constitution is ambivalent, however, when it specifies (in art. 72) that the President can veto bills after they have been approved by Congress (ie, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate). Could the President veto a bill issued by the lower chamber only? The question remained of central importance because the budget fell in that category.
The ambivalence was unproblematic throughout the hegemony of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional from the 1940s until the 1990s. The PRI not only controlled systematic majorities in both chambers of Congress as well as the Presidency; it was also incredibly disciplined to its leader, the President. Therefore no open confrontation between the Executive and Legislative branches of government arose for decades. The question of the President's budgetary veto power surged after 1997, when the President's party lost control of the Chamber of Deputies for the first time in decades. While legal tradition and most law scholars since long have interpreted the Constitution as not granting the President such power, history suggested differently. In the 1920s and 1930s, before the PRI machine came into existence, Presidents Alvaro Obregón and Plutarco Elías Calles, among others, repeatedly vetoed budget bills. Importantly, there seem to be no records of complaints about the unconstitutionality of such vetoes.
When President Fox decided to veto the budget bill approved by the joint opposition, the Leader of the Chamber appealed. On May 17, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the President, granting the Mexican Executive a power to veto the budget.
[edit] Poland
In the constitution of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Poland, there was an institution called the liberum veto. All bills had to pass the Sejm (Parliament) by unanimous consent, and if any legislator voted nay on anything, this not only vetoed that bill but dissolved that legislative session itself. The concept originated in the idea of "Polish democracy", that any Pole of noble extraction was as good as any other, no matter how low or high his material condition might be. It was never exercised in practice under the rule of the strong Polish royal dynasties, but these came to an end in the mid-1600's, and 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 dissolution of the Polish state in the following century.
[edit] Switzerland
In Switzerland, the government cannot stop legislation by itself, but 50,000 voters or eight cantons can demand that a law enacted or certain treaties ratified by the Federal Assembly be made subject to a binding popular referendum. When this constitutional rule was introduced in the 19th century, it was widely referred to as the "people's veto".
[edit] United Nations
In the United Nations Security Council, the five permanent members (the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, France and the United Kingdom) have veto power. If any of these countries votes against a proposal, it is rejected, even if all of the other member countries vote in favour.
[edit] 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, the representative of the monarch (e.g., governor general), or British-style president (who serves the same function as a constitutional monarch, but in a republic). In the United Kingdom, the royal veto was last exercised in 1707 or 1708 by Queen Anne.
In Australia, the Queen may veto a law that has been given royal assent by the Governor-General within one year of the legislation being assented to. The Queen has a similar power in Canada.
[edit] Papal elections
The term veto or exclusion or royal veto might also refer to a form of secular interference in papal conclaves. Certain Catholic monarchs, such of those of France, Austria, Spain and Naples, were acknowledged, tacitly at least, as having the right to exclude a cardinal as a candidate for election. The last time the veto was exercised was by Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary, to exclude Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, in 1903. Rampolla was not elected, and the new pope, Pius X, banned the practice. Secular interference of any kind in a papal election is now forbidden in canon law.
