| Revision as of 23:40, 28 February 2016 edit24.181.68.189 (talk)No edit summaryTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:49, 10 March 2016 edit undo2604:2000:2383:7200:1563:63ba:6b8d:5db9 (talk)No edit summaryTags: possible vandalism blanking repeating characters nonsense charactersNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| blarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh | |||
| {{Other uses of}} | |||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2012}} | |||
| {{Refimprove|date=February 2008}} | |||
| 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 ], whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, 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 ] and ] may '''override''' a Presidential veto of legislation.<ref>] of the ]</ref> A veto gives power only to stop changes, not to adopt them (except for the rare "amendatory veto"). Thus a veto allows its holder to protect the status quo. | |||
| The concept of a veto body originated with the ] ] and ]s. 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 ].<ref name="Spitzer">{{cite book|last=Spitzer|first=Robert J.|title=The presidential veto: touchstone of the American presidency|pages=1–2|publisher=SUNY Press|year=1988|isbn=978-0-88706-802-7}}</ref> | |||
| ==Roman veto== | |||
| The institution of the veto, known to the Romans as the ''intercessio'', was adopted by the ] in the 6th century BC to enable the tribunes to protect the interests of the ] (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the ], 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.<ref name="Spitzer" /> | |||
| ==Westminster systems== | |||
| In ]s and most ], the power to veto legislation by withholding the ] is a rarely used ] 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 ] (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.<ref name="gov.au">{{cite web|url=http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=25 |title=Documenting Democracy |publisher=Foundingdocs.gov.au |date=9 October 1942 |accessdate=2012-08-13}}</ref> Other countries in the ] (not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia), such as Canada and New Zealand, are likewise affected. However, according to the ] (sec. 59), the ] may veto a bill that has been given royal assent by the ] within one year of the legislation being assented to.<ref name="gov.au"/> 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 ], and contrary to the advice of the prime minister.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamer |first=David |author-link=David Hamer |year=2002 |work=Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia? |title=Curiously ill-defined – the role of the head of state |publisher=Australian Government – Department of the Senate |publication-place=Canberra |origyear=1994, University of Canberra |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=9495A9BDD2964D7DB682C13BFA5D4D1A&_z=z |accessdate=1 November 2015}}</ref> This may be done without consulting the sovereign as per Section 58 of the constitution: | |||
| <blockquote>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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm |title=Chapter I. The Parliament. Part V – Powers of the Parliament, Section 58 |work=] |publisher=]: ] |accessdate=13 October 2011}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| This ] 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.<ref> {{wayback|url=http://www.govhouse.wa.gov.au/powers.htm |date=20110614035130 |df=y }}</ref> 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 ], 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 ] 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 ]. 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.<ref>{{cite web|author=Mediation Communications, Level 3, 414 Bourke Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Phone 9602 2992, www.mediacomms.com.au |url=http://www.governor.vic.gov.au/role.htm |title=Government House |publisher=Governor.vic.gov.au |accessdate=2012-08-13 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20120714204231/http://www.governor.vic.gov.au/role.htm |archivedate=14 July 2012 }}</ref> 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 ], the ] may veto a bill by refusing ]. If the ] withholds the Queen's assent, the sovereign may within two years disallow the bill, thereby vetoing the law in question. However, this power has never been used. | |||
| Provincial viceroys, called "]" (plural), however are able to reserve Royal Assent to provincial bills for the governor general; this clause was last invoked in 1961 by the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan.<ref>Bastedo, Frank Lindsay, </ref> | |||
| ===India=== | |||
| {{see also|President of India#Important presidential interventions in the past}} | |||
| 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.<ref name="intro india">{{cite book | title=Introduction to the Constitution of India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=srDytmFE3KMC&pg=PA145 | publisher=Prentice-Hall of India Learning Pvt. Ltd. | author=Sharma, B.k. | year=2007 | location=New Delhi | page=145 | isbn=978-81-203-3246-1}}</ref><ref name="india times">{{cite news | url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-08-26/education/27323497_1_powers-impeachment-resolution | title=The President's role |work=Times of India | date=26 August 2002 | accessdate=4 January 2012 | author=Gupta, V. P.}}</ref> | |||
| ===Spain=== | |||
| In Spain, article 115 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{{clarify|date=September 2012}}, would mean the bill did not become a part of the law. | |||
| ===United Kingdom=== | |||
| In the United Kingdom, the royal veto ("withholding ]") was last exercised in 1708 by ] with the ]. | |||
| The ] used to have an effective power of veto by refusing to concur in bills adopted by the ]. However, reform first by a Liberal government and then by a Labour government has limited its powers. The ] 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 ], the Lords cannot delay any bills set out in the governing party's manifesto. | |||
| ==United States==<!-- This section is linked from ] --> | |||
| ===According to the Constitution=== | |||
| {{See also|List of United States presidential vetoes|Line-item veto in the United States|Pocket veto}} | |||
| 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, then the President signs it into law. According to ] of the Constitution,<ref>{{citation | url = http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22188.pdf | format = PDF | title = Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview | first = Kevin R. |last = Kosar | date = 18 July 2008}}</ref> when the President chooses not to sign or does not approve of the bill, the President must return the ], unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the ] in which it originated, while the Congress is ]. The President is constitutionally required to state any objections to the bill in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto. | |||
| If the Congress ] the veto by a ] 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 signs it. Historically, the Congress ] the Presidential veto less than 10% of the time.<ref name="US Senate Glossary">{{cite web|title=US Senate Glossary|url=http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm|work=US Senate Glossary|publisher=US Senate|accessdate=2 December 2013}}</ref> | |||
| A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after its presentment, the President simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. If there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress ], and if Congress does so ] 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 ]. | |||
| ===Modifications declared unconstitutional=== | |||
| {{unreferenced section|date=July 2015}} | |||
| In 1983, the Supreme Court had struck down the one-house ], on ] grounds and on grounds that the action by one house of Congress violated the Constitutional requirement of bicameralism. The case was '']'', concerning a foreign exchange student in ] 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 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 ] 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 ] passed, and President ] signed, the ]. This ] 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 ] was immediately challenged by members of Congress who disagreed with it. In 1998, the ] declared the line-item veto 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 ]—and particularly as a single legislator acting in place of the entire Congress—thereby violating the ] doctrine. (See '']'', {{ussc|524|417|1998}}.) | |||
| In 2006, Senator ] introduced the ] in the ]. 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. Art. 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. | |||
| ===Early history=== | |||
| ====Intent of the Framers==== | |||
| During the ], the veto was routinely referred to as a 'revisionary power'.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp|title=Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention |date=1787}}</ref> | |||
| The Veto was constructed not as an absolute veto, but rather with limits. Such as that Congress can override a veto, and that a President must state their objections in writing.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Spitzer|first1=Robert J.|title=The Presidential Veto|date=1988|publisher=State University of New York Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0887068027|pages=18–19}}</ref> 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 ] 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."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_912.asp|title=Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention |date=12 September 1787}}</ref> | |||
| During the Constitutional Convention the framers overwhelmingly rejected three proposals for an absolute veto.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pfiffner|first1=James P.|title=Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution|date=2009|publisher=] Press|location= Washington, DC|isbn=081570335X|pages=210–220}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=May|first1=Christopher N.|title=Presidential Defiance of "unconstitutional" Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative|date=1998|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=031330064X|pages=876–881}}</ref> | |||
| ====Under the Articles and Constitution==== | |||
| The ] of the ] (1774–81) did not have the ]. The President could not veto an act of Congress under the ] (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 ] (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<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm | title = Vetoes | work = Virtual Reference Desk | publisher = United States Senate}} – includes lists of vetoes from 1789 to the current day.</ref> when President ] vetoed a bill outlining a new apportionment formula submitted by then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Apportionment described how Congress divides seats in the House of Representatives among the states based on the US census figures. President Washington thought the bill gave an unfair advantage to the northern states. | |||
| The Congress first overrode a presidential veto (passed a bill into law notwithstanding the President's objections) on 3 March 1845.<ref name=veto_history>{{cite web| url=http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes17891988.pdf | title=Presidential Vetoes, 1789 to 1988 | format=PDF | date=February 1992 | publisher=The U.S. Government Printing Office | accessdate=2 March 2009}}</ref> | |||
| ===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.<ref name="Vock">{{cite web|last=Vock|first=Daniel|title=Govs enjoy quirky veto power|url=http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/govs-enjoy-quirky-veto-power-85899386875|publisher=pewstates.org|accessdate=24 April 2007}}</ref> | |||
| ;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.<ref name="Vock"/> | |||
| ;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.<ref name="Vock"/> | |||
| ;Reduction veto | |||
| :Allows a governor to reduce the amounts budgeted for spending items. Reductions can be overridden by the legislature.<ref name="Vock"/> | |||
| ;Package veto | |||
| :Allows a governor to veto the entire bill. Package vetoes can be overridden by the legislature.<ref name="Vock"/> | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| |+ Veto power and override authority by state<ref name="Vock"/><ref>{{cite book|title=The Book of the States 2010|year=2010|publisher=The Council of State Governments|pages=140–142|url=http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/BOSTable3.16.pdf}}</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| ! 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<ref>] (1970) Article IV, Section 9</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | 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<ref>], Article II, Sec. 17(a)</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | Massachusetts || Amendatory, Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package || 2/3 elected; normal majority required to accept amendments<ref>], Amendments, .</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | Michigan || Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package || 2/3rds elected<ref>] (1963), Article IV § 33</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | 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 votes in each house | |||
| |- | |||
| | 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)<ref>], art. III, sec. 18</ref> | |||
| |- | |||
| | Texas || Line Item, Package || 2/3 elected | |||
| |- | |||
| | 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.<!-- There is also another form of presidential veto, which is neglected on this section: pocket veto. --> | |||
| The ] has no veto power, but signs bills into law. | |||
| The ] may refuse to sign a bill, which is then put to universal adult ]. This right was not exercised until 2004, by President ], who has since refused to sign two other bills. The first bill was withdrawn, but the latter two resulted in referenda. | |||
| The ] 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 ]. | |||
| The ] has two options to veto a bill: submit it to the ] if he suspects that it violates the constitution or send it back to the ] 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 ] may refuse to grant assent to a bill that he or she considers to be unconstitutional, after consulting the ]; in this case, the bill is referred to the ], which finally determines the matter. This is the most widely used reserve power. The President may also, on request of a majority of ] (the upper house of parliament) and a third of ] (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 ] 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 ] 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. | |||
| The ] may effectively veto a law adopted by ] 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 ] to declare the law unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules that the law does not violate the ], the President may not object any more and is obliged to finally proclaim the law. | |||
| The ] 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 ] may submit a bill to the ] if he suspects that bill is unconstitutional or send it back to the ] 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 ] may refuse to sign a bill or refer it, or parts of it, to the ]. If the President refuses to sign bill without it being declared unconstitutional, the ] (parliament) may pass it again, in which case it becomes law. | |||
| The ] 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 ] in the 17th and 18th centuries, there was an institution called the ]. All bills had to pass the ''Sejm'' or "Seimas" (Parliament) by ] 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 ] in the late 18th century. | |||
| == Philippine Presidential systems== | |||
| The ] may refuse to sign a bill, sending the bill back to the house where it originated along with his objections. ] 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 ]s 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== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'', a veto power exercised by certain Catholic monarchs by means of their ]s in ]s to prevent '']'' objectionable to them from being elected Pope. | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{Reflist|3}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 22:49, 10 March 2016
blarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh