What Is Required for Congress to Override a Presidential Veto

Legal power to terminate an official action, usually enactment of legislation

A veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state, for instance) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation. A veto tin can be absolute, equally for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, French republic, Russia, the Great britain, and the United States) can block any resolution, or it can exist limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate volition override a presidential veto of legislation.^[1] A veto may give power simply to stop changes (thus allowing its holder to protect the condition quo), like the US legislative veto, or to likewise prefer them (an "amendatory veto"), like the legislative veto of the Indian President, which allows him to suggest amendments to bills returned to Parliament for reconsideration.

The concept of a veto body originated with the Roman offices of consul and tribune of the plebs. There were two consuls every year; either consul could block war machine or ceremonious action by the other. The tribunes had the power to unilaterally block any activity by a Roman magistrate or the decrees passed past the Roman Senate.^[2]

Roman veto [edit]

The institution of the veto, known to the Romans as the intercessio, was adopted past the Roman Republic in the 6th century BC to enable the tribunes to protect the mandamus interests of the plebeians (mutual citizenry) from the encroachments of the patricians, who dominated the Senate. A tribune's veto did not foreclose the senate from passing a bill but meant that information technology was denied the force of constabulary. The tribunes could also apply the veto to foreclose a bill from existence brought before the plebeian associates. The consuls also had the power of veto, every bit controlling 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 formulation of power being wielded not only to manage state affairs merely to moderate and restrict the ability of the state's high officials and institutions.^[two]

Westminster systems [edit]

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 parliament.

Australia [edit]

Since the Statute of Westminster (1931), the Britain Parliament may not repeal any Act of the Parliament of the Republic of Australia on the grounds that is repugnant to the laws and interests of the United Kingdom.^[3] Other countries in the Republic of Nations (non to be confused with the Commonwealth of Commonwealth of australia), such as Canada and New Zealand, are besides affected. However, according to the Australian Constitution (sec. 59), the Queen may veto a bill that has been given regal assent by the Governor-General within ane twelvemonth of the legislation being assented to.^[3] This power has never been used. The Australian Governor-Full general himself or herself has, in theory, the ability to veto, or more than technically, withhold assent to, a bill passed by both houses of the Australian Parliament, and contrary to the communication of the prime government minister.^[iv] This may be done without consulting the sovereign as per Department 58 of the constitution:

When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen'south assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's proper name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the constabulary for the Queen'south pleasure. The Governor-Full general may render to the house in which information technology originated any proposed law and so presented to him and may transmit therewith whatsoever amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.^[five]

This reserve ability is, even so, constitutionally arguable, and information technology is difficult to foresee an occasion when such a power would need to be exercised. It is possible that a Governor-full general might so act if a bill passed past the Parliament was in violation of the Constitution.^[6] One might argue, however, that a regime would be hardly likely to nowadays 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 communication of his or her chief government minister.

Even so, in matters of assent to legislation, the Governor-General is advised by parliament, not by the government. Consequently, when a minority parliament passes a bill against the wishes of the government, the government could resign, but cannot propose a veto.^{[4] [7]}

With regard to the 6 governors of united states of america which are federated under the Australian Republic, a somewhat different situation exists. Until the Australia Deed 1986, each state was constitutionally dependent upon the British Crown straight. Since 1986, however, they are fully contained entities, although the Queen still appoints governors on the advice of the country caput of government, the premier. So the Crown may non veto (nor the UK Parliament overturn) any act of a state governor or state legislature. Paradoxically, us are more contained of the Crown than the federal government and legislature.^[viii] 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 Regal Assent.

Canada [edit]

According to the Constitution Act, 1867, the Queen in Counsel (in practice the Cabinet of the Britain) may instruct the Governor General to withhold the Queen's assent, allowing the sovereign two years to disallow the neb, thereby vetoing the law in question. Last used in 1873, the power was effectively nullified by the Balfour Declaration of 1926.

Provincial viceroys, called "Lieutenant Governors" (plural) are able to reserve Royal Assent to provincial bills for consideration past the Federal Cabinet; this clause was last invoked in 1961 past the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan.^[9] The Govenor General in Council (federal cabinet) may disallow an enactment of a provincial legislature within one year of its passage.

Bharat [edit]

In Republic of india, the president has iii veto powers, i.due east. absolute, break and pocket. The president tin can ship the bill back to parliament for changes, which constitutes a limited veto that can exist overridden past a uncomplicated majority. But the Bill reconsidered by the parliament becomes a police force with or without the assents of President after fourteen 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.^{[ten] [xi]}

Espana [edit]

In Spain, Article 91 of the Constitution provides that the Rex shall requite his assent to laws passed by the Cortes Generales (the legislative power) within 15 days after their concluding passing by them. The King has no veto power over the passed laws,^[12] equally his acts, per Commodity 56.3 of the Constitution, are null and void if not countersigned by the Prime Government minister. Furthermore, Article 59.2 allows the Cortes Generales to declare the King barred and suspend him temporarily or remove him from the postal service given the case that he refuses to comply with his ramble duties.^[xiii]

Commodity xc.i of the Constitution states that "Within ii months subsequently receiving the text, the Senate may, by a message stating the reasons for it, adopt a veto or corroborate amendments thereto. The veto must be adopted by overall majority". A Senate veto tin be overridden by an accented majority vote of the Congress of Deputies, equally explained in Article 90.ii.^[14]

Department 6 of Article 134 of the Constitution allows the Government to turn down to implement a law passed by Cortes if it carries government spending or loss of acquirement.^[15] This prerogative is commonly called veto presupuestario (in English: "budget veto").^[16]

United Kingdom [edit]

In the United Kingdom, the British monarch has two methods of vetoing a pecker. Whatsoever bill that has been passed by both the Business firm of Commons and the House of Lords becomes law only when formally approved by the monarch (or their official representative), in a process known every bit royal assent. Legally, the monarch tin can withhold that consent, thereby vetoing the bill. This power was last exercised in 1708 by Queen Anne to block the Scottish Militia Bill 1708. The method is now generally considered obsolete and regal assent is a formality.^{[ commendation needed ]}

The monarch has additional veto powers over bills which affect the royal prerogative or the monarch's personal diplomacy (such as royal incomes or hereditary holding). Those bills require Queen's consent before they may even exist debated past Parliament, every bit well as royal assent if they are passed. Queen's consent is not obsolete and is occasionally withheld, though now only on the advice of the cabinet. An example was the Military machine Activity Confronting Republic of iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Beak in 1999, which received a first reading under the Ten Minute Rule, only was denied Queen'due south consent for a 2d reading.

Philippines [edit]

The President of the Philippines may pass up to sign a bill, sending the bill dorsum to the house where it originated along with his objections. Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the pecker becomes law. The president may as well veto specific provisions on money bills without affecting other provisions on the same nib. The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; in one case the neb has been received by the president, the main executive has thirty days to veto the bill. Once the xxx-twenty-four hour period period expires, the bill becomes police force as if the president had signed it.

United States [edit]

Federal government [edit]

Constitutional process [edit]

Proposed legislation (bills) that is passed by both houses of Congress is presented to the President, in their capacity equally head of the Executive Branch of the U.s. federal government.

If the President approves of the bill, he or she signs it into constabulary. According to Article 1. Section 7 of the Constitution,^[17] if the President does not approve of the nib and chooses not to sign, they may render it unsigned, inside ten days, excluding Sundays, to the firm of the United states Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session.

The President is constitutionally required to state any objections to the bill in writing, and the Congress is required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. Returning the unsigned bill to Congress constitutes a veto. If the Congress overrides the veto by a ii-thirds vote in each house, information technology becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to go police force.^[18] Historically, the Congress has overridden well-nigh 7% of presidential vetoes.^[nineteen]

A bill becomes law without the President's signature if it is non signed within the ten days allotted, unless there are fewer than x days left in the session before Congress adjourns. If Congress adjourns before the ten days accept passed during which the President might accept signed the bill, then the bill fails to go law. This process, when used informally, is called a pocket veto.

The overall process is largely the aforementioned in the United states of america states.

Veto statement / veto message [edit]

Both the President of the United States and US state governors commonly consequence a veto statement or veto message that provides their reasons for vetoing a measure out when returning it to Congress or the land legislature, as required past the US Constitution, land constitutions, or by custom.^{[20] [21] [22]} Those statements exercise non have precedential value, although their reasoning may be respected within the Executive Branch, and tin contribute to the American constitutional tradition.^[22] Nonetheless, dissimilar a presidential signing statement, a veto statement does non carry much direct weight in the American legal system, because of its function: if Congress fails to override the veto, the bill and veto become legally irrelevant, just if the override succeeds, the veto bulletin is not considered during subsequent executive implementation or judicial interpretation of the police force.^[21]

The President or the land governor may sign the veto argument at a signing anniversary, often with media present, particularly for measures that they wish to disapprove of in a very public way.^{[23] [24] [25]}

Modifications declared unconstitutional [edit]

In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down the one-house legislative veto, on separation of powers grounds and on grounds that the action by 1 house of Congress violated the Ramble requirement of bicameralism. The case was INS five. Chadha, apropos a foreign commutation student in Ohio who had been born in Kenya simply whose parents were from India. Considering 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 educatee visa expired because neither country would take him, so he overstayed his visa and was ordered to show cause why he should non be deported from the United States.^[26]

The Immigration and Nationality Human action was one of many acts of Congress passed since the 1930s, which contained a provision assuasive either house of that legislature to nullify decisions of agencies in the executive branch simply by passing a resolution. In this case, Chadha's displacement was suspended and the House of Representatives passed a resolution overturning the suspension, so that the deportation proceedings would go along. This, the Courtroom held, amounted to the Firm of Representatives passing legislation without the concurrence of the Senate, and without presenting the legislation to the President for consideration and approving (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 downwardly.

In 1996, the U.s.a. Congress passed, and President Nib Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Human action 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 Congress. However, this line-item veto was immediately challenged by members of Congress who disagreed with information technology. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled 6–iii to declare the line-item veto unconstitutional. In Clinton v. City of New York (524 U.S. 417 (1998)), the Court found the language of the Constitution required each bill presented to the President to exist either approved or rejected equally a whole. An action by which the President might pick and cull which parts of the bill to approve or not approve amounted to the President acting as a legislator instead of an executive and caput of state—and particularly as a single legislator acting in place of the entire Congress—thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine.^[27] Prior to this ruling, President Clinton had applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.^{[28] [29]}

In 2006, Senator Bill Frist introduced the Legislative Line Item Veto Human activity of 2006 in the United States Senate. Rather than provide for an bodily legislative veto, however, the procedure created by the Act provides that, if the President should recommend the rescission of a monetary line particular from a upkeep bill he previously signed into law—a power he already possesses pursuant to U.S. Const. Commodity II—the Congress must vote on his request inside 10 days. Because the legislation that is the subject of the President's asking (or "Special Message", in the linguistic communication of the beak) was already enacted and signed into police force, the vote by the Congress would be ordinary legislative action, not any kind of veto—whether line-item, legislative or any other sort. The Firm passed this measure, merely the Senate never considered information technology, so the bill expired and never became constabulary.^[xxx]

In 2009, Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain introduced legislation of a express version of the line-item veto. This bill would give the president the power to withdraw earmarks in new bills by sending the pecker dorsum to Congress minus the line-item vetoed earmark. Congress would and then vote on the line-item vetoed bill with a bulk vote nether fast track rules to make whatever deadlines the bill had.^{[31] [32] [33]}

Early history [edit]

Intent of the Framers [edit]

During the Constitutional Convention, the veto was routinely referred to as a 'revisionary power'.^[34]

The veto was synthetic non as an accented veto, but rather with limits, such as that Congress can override a veto, and that the President's objections must be stated in writing.^[35] These limits would have been important in the minds of the Founders, given that in Britain the monarch retained an absolute veto (though past this time the power of withholding royal assent had go a formality, being last exercised in 1708, 68 years before independence). Farther, as Elbridge Gerry explained in the last days of the convention: "The principal object of the revisionary bank check of the President is not to protect the general interest, merely to defend his own section."^[36]

During the Constitutional Convention the framers overwhelmingly rejected 3 proposals for an accented veto.^{[37] [38]}

Under the Articles and Constitution [edit]

The Presidents of the Continental Congress (1774–1781) did non have the power of veto. The President could not veto an human activity of Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), but he possessed certain recess and reserve powers that were non necessarily available to the predecessor President of the Continental Congress. It was merely with the enactment of the The states Constitution (drafted 1787; ratified 1788; fully effective since iv March 1789) that veto power was conferred upon the person titled "President of the United States".^{[ commendation needed ]}

The presidential veto power was first exercised on 5 Apr 1792 when President George Washington vetoed a bill outlining a new circulation formula.^[39] Apportionment described how Congress divides seats in the House of Representatives among the states based on the US census figures. President Washington's stated reasons for vetoing the nib were that information technology did not apportion representatives according to states' relative populations and that it gave eight states more than one representative per 30,000 residents, in violation of the Constitution.^[forty]

The Congress first overrode a presidential veto (passed a bill into law notwithstanding the President's objections) on 3 March 1845.^[41]

State governments [edit]

All U.S. states likewise accept 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 authorisation to strike or revise portions of a nib without hitting the whole beak.

Governors' powers [edit]

Amendatory veto

Allows a governor to improve bills that have been passed past the legislature. Revisions are bailiwick to confirmation or rejection past the legislature.^[42]

Line item veto

Allows a governor to remove specific sections of a bill (commonly just spending bills) that has been passed by the legislature. Deletions can be overridden past the legislature.^[42]

Pocket veto

Whatever neb presented to a governor after a session has ended must be signed to get law. A governor tin can reject to sign such a bill and it will expire. Such vetoes cannot be overridden.^[42]

Reduction veto

Allows a governor to reduce the amounts budgeted for spending items. Reductions can exist overridden by the legislature.^[42]

Bundle veto

Allows a governor to veto the entire bill. Package vetoes tin can exist overridden by the legislature.^[42]

[edit]

Veto power and override authorization by state^{[42] [43]}

State	Veto powers	Veto override standard
Alabama	Amendatory, Line Item, Pocket, Package	Majority elected
Alaska	Line Item, Reduction, Package	2⁄3 elected for regular bills; 3⁄iv elected for budget bills
Arizona	Line Detail, Bundle	2⁄3 elected; 3⁄4 elected for miscellaneous items
Arkansas	Line Item, Package	Majority elected
California	Line Detail, Reduction, Packet	2⁄3 elected
Colorado	Line Item, Packet	2⁄3 elected
Connecticut	Line Detail, Parcel	2⁄iii elected
Delaware	Line Item, Pocket, Package	3⁄five elected
Florida	Line Item, Package	ii⁄3 nowadays
Georgia	Line Detail, Parcel	two⁄3 elected
Hawaii	Line Item, Parcel	2⁄3 elected
Idaho	Line Item, Bundle	2⁄iii present
Illinois	Amendatory, Line Item (spending only), Reduction, Packet	3⁄v elected for parcel; Majority elected for amendatory/line-item/reduction[44]
Indiana	Packet	Majority elected
Iowa	Line Particular, Pocket, Package	2⁄3 elected
Kansas	Line Item, Package	ii⁄3 membership
Kentucky	Line Particular, Package	Majority elected
Louisiana	Line Item, Package	2⁄3 elected
Maine	Line Item, Reduction, Package	2⁄3 elected
Maryland	Line Item, Bundle	three⁄5 elected[45]
Massachusetts	Amendatory, Line Item, Pocket, Reduction, Bundle	2⁄3 elected for line-item/reduction/parcel; normal bulk for amendatory[46]
Michigan	Line Particular, Pocket, Reduction, Package	2⁄3 elected[47]
Minnesota	Line Item, Pocket, Package	2⁄3 elected
Mississippi	Line Particular, Package	ii⁄3 elected
Missouri	Line Particular, Package	2⁄3 elected
Montana	Amendatory, Line Item, Packet	2⁄3 present
Nebraska	Line Item, Reduction, Parcel	3⁄5 elected
Nevada	Bundle	2⁄3 elected
New Hampshire	Package	2⁄iii nowadays
New Bailiwick of jersey	Amendatory, Line Item, Pocket, Reduction, Package	2⁄three elected
New Mexico	Line Item, Pocket, Package	2⁄3 nowadays
New York	Line Item, Pocket, Parcel	2⁄three elected
Due north Carolina	Package	3⁄5 present
North Dakota	Line Item, Package	2⁄3 elected
Ohio	Line Detail, Packet	3⁄5 elected
Oklahoma	Line Item, Pocket, Package	ii⁄3 elected
Oregon	Line Item, Package	2⁄three nowadays
Pennsylvania	Line Particular, Reduction, Package	2⁄3 elected
Rhode Island	Line Item, Package	iii⁄5 present
Southward Carolina	Line Item, Package	2⁄3 elected
South Dakota	Amendatory, Line Item, Bundle	two⁄3 elected
Tennessee	Line Item, Reduction, Package	Ramble bulk (Majority elected)[48]
Texas	Line Item, Package	ii⁄3 present
Utah	Line Item, Package	ii⁄3 elected
Vermont	Pocket, Package	2⁄3 present
Virginia	Amendatory, Line Particular, Parcel	2⁄three nowadays including majority of elected members
Washington	Line Item, Package	2⁄three present
West Virginia	Line Item, Reduction, Package	Majority elected
Wisconsin	Amendatory, Line Particular, Reduction, Package	2⁄three present
Wyoming	Line Item, Package	two⁄3 elected

European republican systems [edit]

Presidential veto [edit]

Many European republics allow some form of presidential veto on legislation, which may vary, according to their constitutional class or by convention. These include French republic, Republic of hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine.

The President of Estonia may effectively veto a law adopted past Estonian parliament by refusing to proclaim it and demanding a new argue and decision. The parliament, in its turn, may override this veto by passing the constabulary unamended for the 2nd time (a simple bulk is enough). In this case the President is obliged to proclaim the law or to request the Supreme Court of Estonia to declare the constabulary unconstitutional. If the Supreme Courtroom rules that the police force does not violate the Constitution, the President may not object any more than and is obliged to finally proclaim the police force.

The President of French republic has simply a very limited form of suspensive veto: when presented with a constabulary, they can request another reading of it by the Associates, but only in one case per law. Aside from information technology, the President tin only refer bills to the Constitutional Council.

The President of Republic of hungary has two options to veto a bill: submit information technology to the Constitutional Courtroom if he suspects that it violates the constitution or send it back to the Parliament and ask for a second argue and vote on the bill. If the Court rules that the bill is constitutional or information technology is passed by the Parliament once again, respectively, the President must sign information technology.

The President of Iceland may refuse to sign a bill, which is then put to referendum. This right was non exercised until 2004, by President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who has since refused to sign ii other bills. The first beak was withdrawn, just the latter two resulted in referenda.

The President of Ireland may refuse to grant assent to a nib that they consider to be unconstitutional, later consulting the Quango of Land; in this case, the beak is referred to the Supreme Court, which finally determines the matter. This is the most widely used reserve power. The President may likewise, on request of a majority of Seanad Éireann (the upper house of parliament) and a third of Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament), later on consulting the Quango of State, decline to sign a neb "of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to exist ascertained" in an ordinary plebiscite or a new Dáil reassembling after a general election held within eighteen months. This latter ability has never been used because the government of the day almost e'er commands a bulk of the Seanad, preventing the third of the Dáil that usually makes up the opposition from combining with it.

The President of Italian republic may request a second deliberation of a pecker passed past Parliament before it is promulgated. This is a very weak form of veto as the Parliament can override the veto by an ordinary bulk. The same provision exists in French republic and Latvia. While such a limited veto cannot thwart the volition of a determined parliamentary majority, information technology may have a delaying consequence and may cause the parliamentary majority to reconsider the matter.

The President of Latvia may suspend a pecker 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 information technology enables the President to appeal to the people against the wishes of the Parliament and Government.

The President of Poland may submit a bill to the Constitutional Tribunal if they suspect that the bill is unconstitutional or send information technology dorsum to the Sejm for a second voting. If the Tribunal says that the bill is constitutional or if Sejm passes it by at least iii-fifths of the votes, the President must sign the bill.

The President of Portugal may refuse to sign a bill or refer it, or parts of it, to the Constitutional Court. If the President refuses to sign pecker without it existence declared unconstitutional, the Associates of the Republic (parliament) may laissez passer information technology again, in which instance it becomes law.

The President of Ukraine may refuse to sign a neb and render 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 inside ten days.

Liberum veto [edit]

In the constitution of Poland or the Polish–Lithuanian Democracy in the 17th and 18th centuries, there was an institution called the liberum veto. All bills had to pass the Sejm or "Seimas" (Parliament) by unanimous consent, and if whatsoever legislator voted nay on annihilation, this non only vetoed that bill but also dissolved that legislative session itself. The concept originated in the idea of "Polish democracy" as whatever Pole of noble extraction was considered as good as any other, no matter how low or high his textile condition might be. It was never exercised, even so, nether the rule of the strong Shine purple dynasties, which came to an end in the mid-17th century. These were followed by an elective kingship. The more and more frequent use of this veto ability paralyzed the power of the legislature and, combined with a string of weak figurehead kings, led ultimately to the partitioning and the dissolution of the Polish state in the late 18th century.

See as well [edit]

• Constitution of the Roman Republic
• Pocket veto
• Pop referendum
• United nations Security Council veto power
• Jus exclusivae, a veto ability exercised by sure Catholic monarchs by means of their crown-cardinals in papal conclaves to prevent papabili objectionable to them from being elected Pope.
• Section 33 of the Canadian Lease of Rights and Freedoms, allowing a temporary legislative override of court decisions

References [edit]

1. ^ Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
2. ^ ^{a b} Spitzer, Robert J. (2000). The presidential veto: touchstone of the American presidency. SUNY Printing. pp. 1–2. ISBN978-0-88706-802-7.
3. ^ ^{a b} "Documenting Democracy". Foundingdocs.gov.au. ix Oct 1942. Archived from the original on 1 June 2011. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
4. ^ ^{a b} Hamer, David (2002) [1994, University of Canberra]. "Curiously sick-divers – the part of the caput of state". Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia?. Canberra: Australian Authorities – Department of the Senate. Retrieved 1 November 2015.
5. ^ "Affiliate I. The Parliament. Part V – Powers of the Parliament, Section 58". Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Human activity. Parliament of Commonwealth of australia: Section of the Senate. Archived from the original on 14 October 2011. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
6. ^ Read, Jolly, ed. (May 2000). "Powers of the Governor". Dynamics in Regime: A guide to the workings of government in Western Commonwealth of australia. Constitutional Centre of Western Commonwealth of australia. Archived from the original on 6 April 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
7. ^ Twomey, Anne. "Why a regime would be mad to advise the refusal of royal assent to a beak passed against its volition".
8. ^ Mediation Communications, Level 3, 414 Bourke Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Phone 9602 2992, www.mediacomms.com.au. "Government House". Governor.vic.gov.au. Archived from the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. ^ Bastedo, Frank Lindsay, Encyclopedia of Saskatachewan Archived 24 May 2013 at the Wayback Automobile
10. ^ Sharma, B.k. (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. 145. ISBN978-81-203-3246-1.
11. ^ Gupta, V. P. (26 August 2002). "The President's role". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 16 June 2012. Retrieved iv January 2012.
12. ^ Congress. Constitution, Article 91, synopsis
13. ^ Congress. Constitution, Title 2
14. ^ Congress. Constitution, Title III, Second Affiliate
15. ^ Congress. Constitution, Title 7
16. ^ Delgado Ramos, David. University of La Rioja The Government budget veto (Spanish)
17. ^ "Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: In Brief". Congressional Research Service. 18 July 2019. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
18. ^ "U.s.a. Senate Glossary". U.s.a. Senate. Retrieved 2 Dec 2013.
19. ^ Sollenberger, Mitchel A. (vii April 2004). "Congressional Overrides of Presidential Vetoes" (PDF). CRS Written report for Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
20. ^ Legislature, New Jersey (2003). Manual of the Legislature of New Jersey. Vol. 210. pp. 358, 359.
21. ^ ^{a b} Ackerman, Bruce (2011). The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Harvard University Press. p. 222. ISBN9780674058392.
22. ^ ^{a b} Brest, Paul; Levinson, Sanford; Balkin, Jack M.; Amar, Akhil Reed; Siegel, Reva B. (2018). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business organization. p. 215. ISBN9781454897613.
23. ^ 1989Congressional Tape, Vol. 135, Page 13591 "The President should have had the veto signing ceremony at the local gas station." [1]
24. ^ "Penn Land Law Review". 2006: 545. Governor Ehrlich stated at the veto signing ceremony that...
25. ^ Ward, Alex (15 March 2019). "The New Zealand shooter chosen immigrants "invaders." Hours later, and then did Trump". Vox.com . Retrieved fifteen March 2019. On Friday, Trump issued the first veto of his presidency to override a congressional blockade of the national emergency he declared at America's southern border. During the veto signing ceremony, Trump explained why he felt a national emergency was warranted to stop migrants from entering the U.s.a..
26. ^ Williams, Lena (19 June 1985). "Faces Behind Famous Cases". The New York Times . Retrieved 26 April 2017.
27. ^ "Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union". Transcript. The American Presidency Projection. 24 January 1995. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
28. ^ "Supreme Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto". CNN. 25 June 1998. Archived from the original on 8 October 2008.
29. ^ "History of Line Item Veto Notices". National Archives and Records Administration.
30. ^ 109th Congress (2006) (7 March 2006). "H.R. 4890 (109th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved xv October 2018. Legislative Line Detail Veto Deed of 2006
31. ^ "Feingold, McCain, Ryan Introduce Line-item Veto to Adjourn Wasteful Spending". Archived from the original on seven November 2021 – via YouTube. Video of reintroduction of Line Item Veto Bill 4 March 2009
32. ^ "Feingold, McCain, Ryan Introduce Line-item Veto to Curb Wasteful Spending". U.s.a. Senate. 4 March 2009. Archived from the original on 5 January 2011.
33. ^ "Briefing past White Firm Printing Secretary Robert Gibbs". whitehouse.gov. 25 February 2009 – via National Archives.
34. ^ Madison, James (1787). "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention".
35. ^ Spitzer, Robert J. (1988). The Presidential Veto. New York: Land Academy of New York Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN978-0887068027.
36. ^ Madison, James (12 September 1787). "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention".
37. ^ Pfiffner, James P. (2009). Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. pp. 210–220. ISBN978-0815703358.
38. ^ May, Christopher N. (1998). Presidential Disobedience of "unconstitutional" Laws: Reviving the Purple Prerogative. Greenwood Printing. pp. 876–881. ISBN031330064X.
39. ^ Caulfield, Michael (November 2010). "Apportioning Representatives in the The states Congress – Jefferson's Method of Apportionment". Convergence. Mathematical Association of America.
40. ^ Washington, George (5 April 1792). "Veto Message of George Washington 5 April 1792". Letter to Firm of Representatives. New York: Agency of National Literature, Inc. Retrieved fifteen October 2018.
41. ^ "Presidential Vetoes, 1789 to 1988" (PDF). The U.S. Government Printing Office. Feb 1992. Retrieved two March 2009.
42. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Vock, Daniel. "Govs relish quirky veto power". pewstates.org. Retrieved 24 April 2007.
43. ^ The Book of the States 2010 (PDF). The Council of Land Governments. 2010. pp. 140–142.
44. ^ Constitution of Illinois (1970) Article IV, Section 9
45. ^ Constitution of Maryland, Commodity II, Sec. 17(a)
46. ^ Constitution of Massachusetts, Amendments, Article Xc.
47. ^ Constitution of Michigan (1963), Article IV § 33
48. ^ Tennessee Constitution, art. 3, sec. 18

External links [edit]

• "Vetoes". Virtual Reference Desk. United States Senate.

mossfouldlairity.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto