Is the presidential veto helpful to democracy?

Yes

1 of 17

by Emily Johnson

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Yes, the power of the President to veto legislation is not merely helpful; it is a founding principle that goes to very heart of American democracy. Without the veto, we wouldn't have true separation-of-powers and would be at the whim of the Congress.

Some people are surprised to learn that the constitutional "veto" provision doesn't actually contain the word "veto" (see Article I, Section 7, Clause 2.) What it does do is require that every bill passed be presented to the President, stipulating that in order to become a law, the President must signify his approval by signature. There are two exceptions: (1) Congress may override his veto by a two-thirds majority; and, (2) The President has no veto authority over constitutional amendments. Other than those two exceptions, no signature, no law.

Scores of historical examples exist that illustrate how the veto has benefitted our Democracy. For example, despite the occasional inclination of a few Presidents or Members of Congress to swing to the extreme far religious right with regard to policy-making, we do still live in a Nation that places a high value on separation of church-and-state via the Establishment Clause. After all, freedom to worship however they wanted was a fundamental reason why the pilgrims journeyed here in the first place.

In 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill that, in his view, would have violated separation-of- church-and-state. Essentially, the bill passed by Congress incorporated the Presbyterian Church. In his Veto Message to the Congress on February 21, 1811, he expressed his concern that serious lines had been crossed because the bill proposed to legislate "rule and proceedings" of the church, including procedures outlined right in the text of the bill that went so far as "comprehending even the election and removal of the minister..."

It's fascinating to read the exchange between Members of Congress when Madison issued his veto and kicked the bill back. Several Members voiced their opinions that their understanding of the Constitution was that it only prohibited the establishment of a "National Church" , but otherwise they believed legislation of religion was acceptable.

Imagine if Madison had not vetoed that bill? At the very least, hiring and firing decisions of Presbyterian congregations across the Nation would be determined by rules established by the federal government. Even worse, we might all be Presbyterians (no offense to my Presbyterian friends intended).

President Grover Cleveland, who earned the nickname of "the veto President", is also an intriguing example of the evolution of our democracy as we know it today by way of veto power and, I think, an example of how the veto has helped our democracy. During his first term in office, Cleveland vetoed 414 bills. That's more than twice the number of all his predecessors combined and his record still stands. Cleveland flat out refused to sign any legislation that he thought provided special treatment to a special interest group. Among the first of those vetoes was legislation that would have given farmers $10,000 worth of seed. The catch is you had to be a farmer in Texas, because no other residencies were eligible.

Why so many vetoes? Cleveland was the first post-civil war President and northern Republicans were playing up the "soldier vote" . When Lincoln's Pension Bureau would deny payment to individual veterans, the solider or his family would turn to their friendly Representative. Hundreds of bills were passed by Congress, each providing an individual or family with a civil war pension in widely varying amounts of money, which Cleveland described as a "raid on the treasury". Cleveland viewed many of these as scams, wherein the soldier had actually defected or served dishonorably. Only Union soldiers from the North were benefitting, so southern Democrats were already miffed. Most of those bills were vetoed.

The jury is still out on more recent use of the Presidential veto. In 1995 President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have allowed an increase on the debt ceiling to approximately $5 trillion dollars. While he supported the increase, his veto was due to the bill being loaded up with tax cuts for the wealthy. Incidentally, due to a series of bills that were not vetoed since then our debt ceiling today is at $10.6 trillion. Kind of makes you wish that our Presidents had used that veto pen more often, doesn't it?

President George W. Bush only refused to sign bills 8 times over two terms in office, as opposed to his predecessor, who vetoed 37 bills and his father, who vetoed 44. If you side with the scientific community, President George W.'s veto of federal support of stem cell research was hugely significant. In my own opinion, his veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which covered children whose parents can't afford private medical coverage but don't qualify for Medicaid, was a national disgrace.

There is occasionally discussion about limiting the Presidential veto to those matters strictly related to constitutional matters. What would happen then? The significance of a political platform in Presidential elections would die, because the the President would be required to sign and enforce laws that he/she disagrees with and lose all negotiating power with the Congress. The Legislative branch would become something frighteningly akin to a dicatorship. Every so often when our political leaders swing far to the religious right, we could feel like a theocracy. Americans and their rule of law and order would be at the whim of Congress.

Whether or not we agree when our President refuses to sign a specific bill into law, there is a solid historical record supporting the use of the Presidential veto as being one of those cornerstones of our democracy that prevents one branch of government from power-grabbing or violating our Constitutional rights. For over 200 years, this system has worked well enough so that Americans should be wary of anyone proposing to mess with it.

Learn more about this author, Emily Johnson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.