wat president made the most vigorous use of the veto power in the 1850's?
341573
Franklin Pierce. I said it first! Give me the points!
445193
Andrew Jackson. Partyers followed him to the White House to celebrate and his aides had to fill washtubs with orange juice and whisky on the lawn to get them out of the White House.LOL
399900
I think it was Jefferson, which was ironic because he was a staunch supporter of strict interpretation of the constitution. The constitution, however, did not give the president the right to buy land for the country.
6053
As the previous responder said, a line-item veto is used to veto only a part of a bill, especially appropriations bills, which can contain a huge number of provisions. Congress often likes to insert controversial measures into these, because they know the President will likely not veto the whole bill. Line-item veto is not allowed for the president by the United States Constitution, but was briefly used by Clinton when Congress passed the Line-item Veto act of 1996. It was ruled unconstitutional after its first use.
915946
A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. \n\nThe one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up and the President does not sign the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, then it does become law. \n\nIgnoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden.
486421
Congress can override veto power by passing a law with 2/3 majority or by a Constitutional amendment.
454284
Congress is in charge of taxing and spending, not the President.  He can veto, but has yet to do so on any spending bill.  I found a great article that puts the deficit in a new light by Walter Williams.  Visit his website as well, he is very good about explaining economic theory in very simple and understandable ways.
458674
There have been two that I know of:\n\nAndrew Johnson was voted into the Senate in 1874, 6 years after he completed Abraham Lincoln's term of office, and John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives in 1830, two years after being defeated in his bid for reelection to the Presidency.
1155755
Often credited with being the first  "modern president". Rough Riders. Panama Canal. Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the war between Russia and Japan. One of America's greatest presidents.
371896
the Compromise of 1850, thereby repulsing Southern threats of secession while urging Northern support for a stronger law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
1108699
No, because it's blatantly unconstitutional and ultimately circumvents the whole point between having a separated executive and legislative branch.\n\nLine Item Veto power gives the President the power to effectively change the intent of any law Congress passes to suit his whims by simply marking out those sections of laws he does not like... and unlike the system we have now, with a line-item veto, there are absolutely no checks and balances in place to prevent him from doing so egregiously because, once he is done re-writing the law to suit him, he can simply sign it into law and be done with it (meaning the person who writes the law is now the person who decides if his judgment is valid, rather than having an outside check on his judgment in case it isn't reasonable).\n\nThe whole point of giving the President veto power over a whole bill so he has to either approve it in the form it is presented to him, or veto it in that form and return it to Congress, is to leave the power to legislate with the legislative body where it belongs.  Considering the veto in its current form, the President must present his reasoning for overturning the will of the legislature and place the matter back into their hands for them to decide how best to appropriately address the President's objections, or even if they have any merit, and then afford the legislature an opportunity to revise the bill or force its passage without the President's consent... again, leaving the power to define laws in the hands of a diverse legislative body whose debate, by necessity, must reflect a wider spectrum of values than just the values, than that of a single man.\n\nLine item veto power sabotages this critical process and places the power to determine the final nature and intent of laws not in the hands of the legislative body which was intended to conceive and define them, but in the hands of a single man who may, at the eleventh hour, choose to simply recraft the law to his desires and then pass it without so much as consulting a single person as to whether or not what he has just done is in the best interests of the people.\n\nEven Congress was not allowed so much power as to determine the laws without having some sort of outside check to determine whether the law is fair, just, and wise (hopefully) before allowing it to become a law imposed on the people.  Why should it be allowed to the President?\n\nThese are safeguards which were put in place because we know how easily such unilateral power can be abused when placed in the hands of a single person.  Giving the President line item veto power is tantamount to removing safeguards the balance of history has proven beyond a doubt the wisdom of having in place.\n\nIf the question is whether or not I would specifically support George W. Bush (as opposed to any President) having such a power, I would not, even if it were restricted to specific types of legislation such as budgetary legislation.\n\nEven restricted to budgetary concerns, the line-item veto would leave President Bush the power to vastly redefine the intent of the legislature and reshape the country as he saw fit (for instance, it doesn't seem to have occurred to people such a budgetary power would allow him to defund court districts which are traditionally more liberal, or do away with any social programs he simply didn't like, from AIDS research grants to medical care for the disabled and help with family planning, arts endowments, programs which encouarage inner-city development or minority enrichment, etc).\n\nIt also seems to be his habit to want to accumulate more unchecked power around himself so he can unilaterally force his will on everyone else.  President Bush's actions have not been the actions of a man interested in being the elected leader of a democratic nation.  They're the actions of a man who wants to be an autocrat.\n\nConsider what he does.\n\nPresident Bush has made almost every decision he makes
790702
YES, a Presidential Veto can be overridden -- it takes a 2/3rds majority vote from BOTH houses to override a Presidential Veto.
1152742
We had something similar passed here last decade.  We called it the LINE ITEM VETO.  It allowed the president to cross out lines of legislation passed before signing it into law.  The purpose was to stop idiot lawmakers from adding totally unrelated items to a bill (ie.  the federal government shall be responsible for determining jurisdictional boundries . > and $50 million shall be approved for pothole repair in Pittsburg)\nThe line item veto allowed the last bit to be stricken from the passed legislation and was intended to undo what has become the main gridlocking habit of the day.  pas a piece of legislation that conbines two or more unassociated things so as to make it unpalatable or to piggyback onething that outerwise would not get passed.\nWe no longer have people up in arms and perhaps this is what your bill is really about,\nIf not, your constitution should have basis to challenge this law, should it pass.
260498
One June 30, 1906, a broiling day in Washington, President Theodore Roosevelt went to the Capitol to sign into law nearly a hundred bills hurried through the Congress as its session came to an end. Among them was one passed the day before by both Senate and House in a form agreed to in conference committee, the Food and Drugs Act. Although a latecomer to the cause of a pure food law, Teddy Roosevelt had used his weight decisively in 1906 to ensure that this time Congress would not adjourn, as so often before, leaving such legislation languishing.
32870
Andrew Jackson was a major influence on all of the presidents who served during this period of history. From 1840-1860 state's rights democrats won every election on the popularity of Andrew Jackson who served from 1832-1840. As a result they worked hard to emmulate him as he founded the Democratic Party and he was the idol of their party much like Henry Clay was for Lincoln.
314388
I believe it was Andrew Jackson.
176741
His biggest contributions to the United States lay in his actions before he became the President.  He is often cited as the father of the constitution and was a major contributor to the federalist papers.  As President, the War of 1812 dominated his presidency.