US, presidential VETO

Now I’m lost here somewhat … what’s the point of passing a law in congres when it can be vetoed by the president? Why even go through all the hassle, spend all the money or even have a congres … :s

Checks and balances…checks and balances. Besides, Congress can override with a higher majority. That way Congress gets the final say, but in cases of simple majorities the President, who: 1) may be more in tune with the best interests of the nation as a whole than the majority alliance of Congressmen, and 2) has to deal with the enforcement of whatever Congress is putting through; can have his say in the matter. Granted, in today’s political climate Congress almost never gets the “super-majority” to override, but if they really need to get it through they can usually bargain it out.

and it’s a great way to be a prick. :smiley:

At the same time you could ask what’s the point of 5 countries having veto power at the UN.

As sadi before - checs & balances. The whole point is to keep the gov. from getting to many laws passed and protect the interests of the minority. Congress can still get the law passed, but it takes a larger majority.

What is scary about this admnistration is that they are taking this apart by NOT veto’ing and claiming certain laws do not need to be followed by the president.

Just to add to the prior comments, keep in mind that the U.S. existence as a nation was due to a rebellion, in which the primary offender was the British Parliament, who the colonists saw as tyrannical and out of control.

Members of congress can use it as a weapon in campaigns for against presidents (or parties to whom the president belongs) when Congress passes a bill with popular support.

“President Smith vetoed the XYZ bill. If Jones were president, he would have signed it. Vote for Jones.”