Executive Veto Power: Limits And Constitutional Balance

The executive veto power is a crucial aspect of the constitutional system in many countries, including the United States. It allows the president or the elected head of state to reject a bill passed by the legislature, preventing it from becoming a law. While the veto power is intended to provide a check and balance on legislative power, there are concerns about its extent and potential abuse. The ease of overturning a veto varies between jurisdictions, and in some cases, a pocket veto can be used to block legislation without the possibility of override. This raises questions about the appropriate balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the need to safeguard against arbitrary or excessive use of veto power. Examining the extent of executive veto power is essential to ensure a functional and balanced constitutional system.

Explore related products

Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Limits on Policing

$35 $35

The Limits of Constitutional Democracy (The University Center for Human Values Series Book 37)

$45 $45

The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights

$45.4 $56

POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT DURING CRISES: Constitutional Limits, Executive Decisions, and the Battle for Balance in Times of National Emergency

$22.99 $22.99

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States Before the Adoption of the Constitution

$150

American Constitutional Law, Volume I: The Structure of Government

$98.8 $130

Presidential veto power in the US

The veto process involves the president returning the bill to the House in which it originated within ten days (excluding Sundays) while Congress is in session. The president must also state their objections to the bill in writing, and Congress is required to consider them. If Congress is adjourned before the ten days elapse, the president can use a "pocket veto", where they prevent a bill from becoming law by not signing it.

To override a regular veto, Congress requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers. The first successful override of a presidential veto occurred in 1845 during the presidency of John Tyler.

In addition to the president, state and territorial governors, some mayors, and county executives also possess veto power. Governors in many states have additional veto powers, including line-item, amendatory, and reduction vetoes.

The extent of executive veto power has been a subject of debate, with the Supreme Court striking down the one-house legislative veto in 1983 on separation of powers grounds. The veto power is intended to provide the president with a suitable opportunity to consider bills presented and ensure they align with the Constitution.

Veto power in state constitutions

In the United States, the president can use the veto power to prevent a bill passed by Congress from becoming law. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The presidential veto power was first conferred by the 1789 Constitution and was first exercised on April 5, 1792, by President George Washington.

Veto power is also granted to all state and territorial governors, as well as some mayors and county executives. In many states and territories, the governor has additional veto powers, including line-item, amendatory, and reduction vetoes.

Historically, in the Thirteen Colonies, the British colonial government exercised two forms of veto: an absolute veto by the governor of each colony (except Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island) and another by the British king. From 1696 to 1765, the king struck down nearly 400 laws passed by an American colonial legislature. This heavy use of the veto power was included in the bill of particulars in the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

In the years immediately following independence, most state constitutions did not provide for a gubernatorial veto. There were three exceptions: South Carolina, which later removed the veto power after governor John Rutledge vetoed the new state constitution; Massachusetts, which provided for a qualified veto that could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the legislature; and New York, which established a "Council of Revision" that could issue a qualified veto.

The Massachusetts and New York constitutions were the only state-level vetoes at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and served as models for the veto power granted to the president. During the Convention, proposals for an absolute veto and a combined judicial-executive veto were rejected.

The pocket veto

The first use of the pocket veto was by President James Madison in 1812. Franklin D. Roosevelt had an outstanding number of pocket vetoes, with 263 out of 635 of his vetoes being pocket vetoes. Since the George W. Bush presidency, no president has used the pocket veto.

There is ambiguity surrounding the use of the pocket veto, with critics arguing that it should only be used when Congress adjourns sine die, meaning at the end of a session. However, presidents have been able to use the pocket veto regardless of when and how Congress adjourns.

Explore related products

The Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the Limits of Constitutional Law (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law, Series Number 12)

$111.43 $138

Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review

$25.58 $37.99

Truman and the Steel Seizure Case: The Limits of Presidential Power (Constitutional Conflicts)

$18.91 $30.95

Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

$30.99 $31.49

The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government

$24.63 $29

Violence As Obscenity: Limiting the Media's First Amendment Protection (Constitutional conflicts)

$23.93 $34.95

Presidential signing statements

The executive branch, led by the president, is tasked by the Constitution with the duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Article II, Section 3). This is often referred to as the "Take Care Clause." Congress passes laws and the President enforces them. If the president feels a law is unconstitutional or ill-advised, they can veto the law instead of signing it.

Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and they have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law, regardless of what the president says in an accompanying signing statement. For example, in 1972, President Nixon issued a signing statement indicating that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect." A federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a president, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect."

Commentators and journalists, including the American Bar Association, have criticised the increasing use of signing statements by presidents to object to provisions of law. They argue that these statements effectively constitute a line-item veto to which Congress cannot respond. However, line-item vetoes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

In conclusion, presidential signing statements allow the president to express their interpretation, objections, or intent regarding a law's language. While they do not carry legal weight, they can contribute to the American constitutional tradition and shape how the executive branch interprets and enforces the law.

Veto power in tribal governments

The concept of veto power has been a part of the political landscape in the United States since its early history. The veto power, or the ability to override a decision by a majority vote, is a key feature of the US political system and is held by the President, state governors, and some mayors and county executives.

Veto power also exists in some tribal governments, though not all. The constitutions of many Native American tribes include an executive veto power over bills passed by the tribal council. For example, the Navajo Nation government's president has a package veto power as well as a line-item veto for budgetary matters. The line-item veto is unique in that it cannot be overridden, as per a 2009 referendum. The Navajo Nation's package veto was notably used by President Kelsey Begaye in 2001 to force a compromise on a law allowing gaming on Navajo Nation land.

Some tribal constitutions adopted under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 give the Secretary of the Interior veto power over tribal legislation. This has caused difficulties for tribal governments, as seen in the "Morton Memorandum" which directed BIA superintendents to disapprove of any tribal legislation regulating water use on Indian reservations.

The inclusion of veto power in tribal governments mirrors the broader US political system, where the President and other executive figures hold this power. The veto power allows for a check on legislative power and ensures that the executive branch has a say in the law-making process. However, it is important to note that the veto power has been controversial and has been rejected at various points in US history, including during the Constitutional Convention when absolute veto proposals were overwhelmingly rejected.

Frequently asked questions