A
veto, Latin for "I forbid", is used to
denote that a certain party has the right to stop
unilaterally a 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 a two thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto
of legislation).
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 of a veto supports the
status quo,
the more useful the veto.
The concept of a veto body originated with the
Roman consul and
tribunes. 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 refuse
legislation passed by the
Roman
Senate.
Papal elections
The term veto or
exclusion or royal veto
was also used to denote a form of secular interference in papal
conclaves.
Certain Catholic monarchs, such of those
of France
, Austria
, and
Spain
, 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,
James from Brehm, revoked the practice.
Secular interference of any kind in a papal election is now
forbidden in
canon law.
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 in substantive matters, though not
in procedural ones. If any of these countries votes against
a proposal, it is rejected, even if all of the other member
countries vote in favour. This provision was designed to ensure
that the Council could not be used to authorize military action
without the assent of all of the five
Great
Powers; there was a distinct fear that failure to receive such
assent would allow the powers to abuse the Council's power to
authorize police actions to the detriment of another.
The principle is
illustrated by the Korean War, in which a
boycott of the Council by the Soviet Union
allowed UNSC Resolution
82 to pass and a war to be started contrary to that Power's
interests.
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. In practice, the
Crown follows the convention of exercising its prerogative on the
advice of its chief advisor, the prime minister.
In Spain there is no constitutional possibility of an
extraparliamentary veto. Only some matters that are passed in
Parliament must have the
assent of the
Government (i.e.
budget).
Australia
Since the
Statute of
Westminster (1931), the Crown of the United Kingdom and its
Parliament may not veto or 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
[11382]. Other countries in the
Commonwealth of Nations (not to be
confused with the Commonwealth of Australia), such as Canada and
New Zealand, are likewise affected. However, according to the
Australian Constitution
(sec. 59), the
Queen may veto a bill
that has been given royal assent by the
Governor-General within one year of the
legislation being assented to
[11383].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
Australian
Parliament, and contrary to the advice of the prime
minister
[11384]. This may be done without consulting the
sovereign. This
reserve power 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 criminal, illegal or in violation of the
Constitution
[11385]. One might argue, however, that a
government would be hardly likely to present a bill which is so
open to rejection. Many of the vice-regal 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.
With regard to the six governors of the states which are federated
under the Australian Commonwealth, a somewhat different situation
exists. Until the
Australia Act 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
premier. So
the Crown or UK Parliament may not veto or 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
[11386]. 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.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the royal veto was last exercised in 1707 or
1708 by
Queen Anne with the
Scottish Militia Bill
1708.
In nations of the
Commonwealth where the Westminster
System is followed, the reserve power, and therefore the power of
withholding the
Royal Assent, is
generally exercised by the representative of Queen
Elizabeth II, usually styled
Governor-General or
Governor. The nature of the power and how it is
exercised may be, and usually is, determined by the legislatures of
the nations.
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
(
sign into law). If he does not approve, he must
return the
bill, unsigned,
within
ten days, excluding
Sundays, to the house of the
United States Congress in which it
originated, while the Congress is
in
session. 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. This action, in effect, is a veto.
If the Congress
overrides the veto 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. If there are
fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress
adjourn, 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
Bill 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. However, this
line-item veto was immediately challenged by
members of
Congress who
disagreed with it.
In 1998, the Supreme
Court
declared that the 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
Bill Frist introduced
the
Legislative
Line Item Veto Act of 2006 in the
United States Senate. 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.
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 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
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 disregarded in this case, and
this legislative veto of executive decisions was struck down.
The
Presidents
of the
Continental Congress
(1774 - 1781) did not have the 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 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.
Most U.S. states also have a provision by which legislative
decisions can be vetoed by the governor. In addition, most of these
states allow the governor to exercise a line-item veto.
European Parliamentary Republics
Presidential veto
Parliamentary republics in Europe, including
Italy
, Portugal
, Ireland
, France and Latvia
, often allow
a form of limited presidential veto on legislation.
The
President of Iceland can
refuse to sign a bill which is then put to universal adult
suffrage.
The
President of Ireland can
refuse to grant assent to a bill which he/she considers to be
unconstitutional, on the advice of the
Council of State; in this case
the bill is referred to the
Supreme Court of Ireland, which
finally determines the matter.
The
President of Italy (Rome is
in Italy) can request a second deliberation of a bill passed by
Parliament before it is promulgated. This is 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 Portugal can
refuse to sign a bill and return it to Parliament with his
proposals. If the parliament agrees on this proposals the President
should sign a bill. Parliament can overturn a veto by 2/3
majority.
The
President of Latvia 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
President of Ukraine, just
like the Portuguese President, can refuse to sign a bill and return
it to Parliament with his proposals. If the parliament agrees on
this proposals the President should sign a bill. Parliament can
overturn a veto by 2/3 majority. If the parliament overturn a veto
President should sign a bill. If he fails to do so in 10 days then
the Chairman of a parliament signs it.
Liberum veto
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-17th century, 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.
See also
References
External links
Top topics
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search
