Hamilton: The President's Veto Power

When a president is sworn into office, he or she takes on a multitude of titles. One of the many titles the president is issued is the role of Chief in Legislator. This means that the president plays a crucial part in the legislative process or lawmaking. This title holds much authority in the eyes of Americans (Hoffman & Howard, 1317). Though this title does not give the president absolute authority, it does grant him or her strong jurisdiction in the legislature. The framers of the Constitution did not want America to be a monarchy the way they were when under the rule of England. As a result, the framers purposefully outlined the president’s limited power in the constitution, creating a democratic

This mainly talks about what powers the President and Vice President have during their time in office. The Article also talks about how the president and the rest of the branch have powers to veto or accept new laws. Framers had to write detailed descriptions for what the President can do, or else one of the President’s could have done what he wanted and made a dictatorship out of our country. But they also trusted each president with power, and they allow them to make new laws in order to better the country.

30, Alexander Hamilton writes all about taxes and taxation in this essay. He has much to say about taxes and the good that they are doing in shaping the nation. He believes that the power to collect taxes when necessary is extremely important for the governmental success. Recently, someone tried to pick apart this essay and state that some senators had the power to limit that excessive amount of spending that the goverment has been up to lately. However, this essay came back into play and proved that idea wrong. Everything was set back into place because of Hamilton's brilliant

The framers experienced the abuse of the English monarchs and their colonial governors. As a result, the framers were skeptical of the excessive executive authority. Furthermore, they also feared excessive legislative powers. This was something that the Articles of Confederation had given their own state legislatures. The framers of the constitution deliberately fragmented power between the national government, the states, and among the executive legislative and judicial branches. The framers of the United States Constitution incorporated a system of separation of powers. They divided the legislative powers between the President and the Congress. The separation of powers authorized the President with the veto power. The veto power is found in the Constitution in Article one, section seven. Only two-thirds of the majority of both chambers to override the president’s veto. Secondly, the president is expected to set the national agenda. This happens before the decline in popularity. The President is focused on legacy rather than on re-election. They want a policy that is good and lasting. Unfortunately, the framers did not intend for the President to set Congressional policy agenda. Only in the times of crisis is the President to act, or call Congress into session. This power is stated in Article two section three of the Constitution. In

Madison says that the separation of powers shouldn't be absolute. Every branch should have some way to check the others’ decisions. “The three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” The Congress can check the President, the President nominates judges, the Court can declare laws unconstitutional. All branches can make sure the others are doing the best possible for our country in at least one way. This system guards against tyranny because it makes sure that no one section of government becomes more powerful than

During Washington’s presidency, Jefferson and Madison’s views contradicted Hamilton’s Federalist ideals. For example, the Republicans believed in a small central government. Therefore, Jefferson initially viewed the Bank of the United States to be unconstitutional because it was beyond the power of the national government. (Doc A) Then in the Virginia Resolution, Madison describes the compact theory and how states have the right to limit the national government based on the constitution. (Doc C) On the other hand, Hamilton supported a strong central government that could enforce the law and uphold the constitution. (Doc B)

Alexander Hamilton’s essay is mainly about the importance of having an independent judiciary branch and its ability to strike down laws passed by Congress which are believed to be “contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution.” The rest of the essay, for the most part, deals with structure of federal courts, their jurisdiction and powers, the methods used in appointing judges and other related issues.

Up until Jackson’s presidency, a veto was only used to stop a piece of legislation if the President viewed it as unconstitutional (Milkis and Nelson 137). However, Jackson believed that “a president should reject any bill he felt would injure the nation” (Milkis and Nelson 138). This new interpretation of the veto gave the President the power to reject legislation on personal opinion alone. Although Congress was clearly disturbed with Jackson’s veto, he maintained the people’s faith and was reelected as president the same year (Milkis and Nelson 138-139).

Despite Hamilton’s opposing beliefs, his attempts to persuade everyone were highly successful, due to the fact that his actions lead to the selection of his bitter, political enemy, Thomas Jefferson, as our nation’s third chief executive, despite the differences they had. Hamilton was able to persuade the House of Representatives to vote for Jefferson over Burr by writing,“From Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis.” In this letter, Hamilton elaborates on how choosing Jefferson is the best option because he is the “less evil” between the two of them. However; the outcome of the election affected not only Hamilton’s political career, but his personal life in numerous ways, as well. As far as his political career goes, he lost an immense amount of support from the Federalists.

For this reason, I would limit the amount of vetoes a President has. In doing so, it is important not to limit them too much. For this reason I would find the average number of vetoes typically issued during a divided government in the past half century and set this as the limit. Limiting vetoes would foster progress in the government. The President would need to evaluate how important certain policy is to him, as well as evaluate the entirety of a bill due to the increased importance in not expending too many vetoes. Less vetoes would be an incentive for the President not to strike down a bill because of a certain portion of it which he disagrees with. Limiting Presidential power in this manner is important because certain Presidents have expanded power during their terms, such as George Bush and Ronald Reagan, much more than is typical and there should not be such large variations in presidential power in different eras (Katznelson, Kesselman and Draper 211). Maintaining a high limit of vetoes however is important, because although I believe the President should have to use shrewd judgement when deciding whether to veto a bill, it is important that the President maintains his veto as an option so that the executive branch maintains power in this transactional relationship. This radical change could probably never come to

All through the American history, the President's capacities have extended enormously from a constrained part doled out by the Founding Fathers to the official force and a more extensive impact over numerous territories. Being suspicious of giving the President an official force which may prompt an American dictator, the Founding Fathers permitted not very many particular president powers, in contrast with the real part of Congress, which was relied upon to be the predominant branch of the national government.

On the other hand, the president can be impeached, tried, and convicted. Additionally, the King of Great Britain has the final say in legislative matters, and if he does not approve of a bill, there is no way for the legislature of Great Britain to overturn the king's decision. Hamilton also stated that four-year terms are not long enough to consolidate a dangerous amount of influence over an entire country. He compared this term limit to the term limits of governors in individual states. He argued, if a governor cannot garner enough influence in one state to become a threat to the peaceful transition of power in three years, how is a president going to be able to obtain a dangerous amount of influence in all the States of America in four. Hamilton proceeded to refute concerns Anti-Federalists have about the president's role as Commander in Chief. One point is that individual governors will still have jurisdiction over local militias. Secondly, the president cannot declare war like a king can, effectively reducing him to the role of a military commander. With regards to foreign affairs, the president needs the senate's approval to ratify treaties. And while the president receives foreign delegations, the ambassadors the president appoints to foreign countries must also be approved by the Senate. Thus, due to term limits and limits on the president's ability to influence the law, declare wars, and handle foreign relations, the

Imagine if the entire American government system was operated entire by the president. Every decision, law, and court ruling determined by only one person. There is no room for debate or questioning, ultimately leading to the abuse of power and authority. While this may seem completely absurd, many believe that this is not very far away from actual truth. Due to the uneven use of checks and balances among the three branches of government, it has resulted in the executive branch of the American government gaining too much power, therefore leaving the original intent of the constitution to be changed and unenforced.

debate and pass various bills. The President has the power to veto the bill, preventing its

A vetocracy is the structure in a government where there are multiple points and ways in which players, either groups or individuals, are allowed to delay or prevent laws or other forms of policy from being enacted. This could, for example, come in the form of the executive undermining the legislative process by impeding both its options and ability to act. In the United States, a bill has to overcome many obstacles, such as committee, the full chamber, and the president’s decision, to get passed, so it is difficult to quickly achieve policy changes as a result. Even through Congress is completely Republican, it cannot pursue its agenda rigorously because President Obama, who can and would want to stop it because it is a member of the opposite, threatens the Congress’s efforts. The majority