Bush set to veto stem cell bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Curious to know what people think of this. Is the use presidential veto appropriate for an issue of this nature, where according to the article at least, the bill in question is supported by a senate majority and (if the article is to be believed) a polled majority of Americans.

Bush set to veto stem cell bill

The bill was backed by 44 Democrats and 19 Republicans, while 36 Republicans and one Democrat opposed it.

Polls suggest most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for serious illnesses.

For comparative purposes - vetos by President

• George W Bush: 0
  
• Bill Clinton: 38
  
• George Bush Snr: 44
  
• Ronald Reagan: 78
  
• FD Roosevelt: 635
  
• Thomas Jefferson: 0
  

[Ban Hammer 14,355]

Curious to know what people think of this. Is the use presidential veto appropriate for an issue of this nature, where according to the article at least, the bill in question is supported by a senate majority and (if the article is to be believed) a polled majority of Americans.

Bush set to veto stem cell bill

The bill was backed by 44 Democrats and 19 Republicans, while 36 Republicans and one Democrat opposed it.

Polls suggest most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for serious illnesses.

For comparative purposes - vetos by President

• George W Bush: 0
  
• Bill Clinton: 38
  
• George Bush Snr: 44
  
• Ronald Reagan: 78
  
• FD Roosevelt: 635
  
• Thomas Jefferson: 0
  

as you've pointed out to me so often, just because the majority endorses something that does not mean it's right.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Curious to know what people think of this. Is the use presidential veto appropriate for an issue of this nature, where according to the article at least, the bill in question is supported by a senate majority and (if the article is to be believed) a polled majority of Americans.

Bush set to veto stem cell bill

The bill was backed by 44 Democrats and 19 Republicans, while 36 Republicans and one Democrat opposed it.

Polls suggest most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for serious illnesses.

For comparative purposes - vetos by President

• George W Bush: 0
  
• Bill Clinton: 38
  
• George Bush Snr: 44
  
• Ronald Reagan: 78
  
• FD Roosevelt: 635
  
• Thomas Jefferson: 0
  

as you've pointed out to me so often, just because the majority endorses something that does not mean it's right.

A judgement which is usually made on a case by case basis, with no shortage of debate.

I'm just wondering whether the presidential veto is ultimately undemocratic.

[CarolineM 0]

I have wondered that too - about the veto being undemocratic. I mean WE elect the officials who vote "for us" and then they make their desicion and if the pres. doesn't like it it's like the vote didn't even matter, essentially disregarding the people's vote...sort of.

Who knows. That comparitive president thing - the years in office should be taken into account with that. FDR was in office for much longer than the rest.

[mercuryroad 0]

The veto in this case is unacceptable.

It is apparent the majority want this to continue.....but then again Bush is used to winning without the majority of people in this country on his side.

He complains about the lack of science skill in this country and then wants to squash one of the most promising areas in medicine. If we don't forge ahead, someone else will and we lose our competitive advantage.

This is a sensitive matter....no doubt.

[CarolineM 0]

The veto in this case is unacceptable.

It is apparent the majority want this to continue.....

But what makes this veto more acceptable or unacceptable than any other?? Isn't veto by definition when the majority wants something but the pres. doesnt?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm just wondering whether the presidential veto is ultimately undemocratic.

No, I don't think it is undemocratic. It's part of our system of "checks and balances". I believe the original intent was to use the veto in emergency circumstances only.. I do not believe THIS is an appropriate use of the veto...

[mercuryroad 0]

The veto in this case is unacceptable.

It is apparent the majority want this to continue.....

But what makes this veto more acceptable or unacceptable than any other?? Isn't veto by definition when the majority wants something but the pres. doesnt?

Because in this case you must look at the rationality behind his veto. What are his reasons?

[CarolineM 0]

I just don't see this veto as different from any other....

[VivaMexico 0]

Because in this case you must look at the rationality behind his veto. What are his reasons?

"I set forward a policy to advance stem cell research in a responsible way by funding research on stem cell lines derived only from embryos that had already been destroyed. This policy set a clear standard: We should not use public money to support the further destruction of human life."

see full remarks: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0050524-12.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm just wondering whether the presidential veto is ultimately undemocratic.

No, I don't think it is undemocratic. It's part of our system of "checks and balances". I believe the original intent was to use the veto in emergency circumstances only.. I do not believe THIS is an appropriate use of the veto...

Its the usage of the veto that's undemocratic then, as being outside the scope of its original intended purpose.

On balance, this is GWB's first usage of the power, but given the Rep majority over the course of his presidency that's perhaps not altogether surprising.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm just wondering whether the presidential veto is ultimately undemocratic.

No, because it can be overridden by Congress.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm just wondering whether the presidential veto is ultimately undemocratic.

No, because it can be overridden by Congress.

Does Congress usually override the veto?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

It does happen

You could turn this around and suggest Clinton was also in the wrong when he vetoed a ban on partial birth abortion in spite of it being passed by Congress and generally supported by opinion polls (an override was successful in the house but not the senate so ultimately failed)

[dalegg 143]

I'm just wondering whether the presidential veto is ultimately undemocratic.

No, because it can be overridden by Congress.

Does Congress usually override the veto?

But the veto power does swing the pendulum of democracy much further in one direction. The Bill only needs 51 out of 100 votes to pass, but if it's vetoed it needs 67 out of 100 votes to be overridden.

The vote by the Senate was 63 to 37, and it's not likely that anyone of the 37 who voted against the bill would vote to override the presidential veto since they obviously agree with the President. So, in this case the President has more power than almost 2/3s of the Senate and more than half of the House. The house voted 238-to-194 on this issue last year.