The Congress cannot pass a law over the President's veto. True or False?
349617
False. They can override a veto, but it takes a 2/3 majority vote.
432139
Strangely enough Bush has never used his veto power. His republican controlled congress only sends him bills hes sure to approve. In fact, only Thomas Jefferson went longer than Bush without using his veto power.\n\n\nPeace
1088692
The President does not "pass" laws.  That's the job of the congress.  And neither one gets involved with things this far removed from national policy.
486421
Congress can override veto power by passing a law with 2/3 majority or by a Constitutional amendment.
1115737
No, it didn't even make it for a vote in the Senate. The House is supposedly going to try and pass it eventually, but without even a majoirty in the Senate there's no way it will ever pass. Even if it did, 3/4 of the states don't want it to pass.
484848
Congress can not 'restrain' the President for introducing, enacting, or initiating foreign policy initiatives.  The executive branch of the federal government provides for the general defense, combats enemies of the state - foreign and domestic, and protects and defends the Constitution.  To that end, the President has jurisdiction over the military, our State Department, and the departments and agencies which are tasked with governance.\n\nThe Congress may object to the use of our military in certain situations, and the President is obligated to approach the Congress on military spending or in the desire to deploy military forces in combat.  By denying the President his requests, the Congress may object to 'foreign policy.'  \n\nIn general however, Congress has little 'say' in the foreign policy matters that the executive branch may initiate.  They may object to him vociferously on the floor, or they may do so in the media, but that will not negate his foreign policy in any other way. On occasion, foreign policy matters are brought to the attention of certain committees which have the power to censure the president, or bring testimony about certain programs that are in violation of Constitution.
541805
You do realize that it is Congress who has to pass the right to go to war right? I mean all the president is, is the congresses scape goat you should really do some studing before pointing fingers.
990930
Dude, calm down.\nFirst of all, the Constitution and its amendments are not laws.  If something contradicts the constitution it is deemed unconstitutional.  Not illegal.\nSecond.  Bush can't write a bill let alone pass a bill.  Did you ever hear that School House Rock song "I'm Only A Bill". . .Only Congress can pass law and write bills.  The president can either sign it, veto it, or ignore it.  Learn some civics.  What you are referring to is Executive Order 13198 (and a handful of others subsequent to this one) executed on January 29, 2001.  And before you go jumping off a bridge, read them carefully.  They don't say what you apparently think.\nThird.  You are incorrect about your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings regarding whatever specific faith based initiative you are stuck on.  If the Supreme Court has ruled and it exists, you must be wrong.  QED.\nFourth.  Saying that you don't mind as long as ALL religions are represented is a very cute way of avoiding saying what's really in your heart.  If we represent ALL then we really are representing NONE.\nLast.  There are numerous things that are better done by religious and other community organizations (as opposed to the government).  For example, the Catholic Church does a wonderful job providing adoption services for disabled orphans.  A better job than the government.  The church avoids some of the thornier issues regarding church/state by separating its adoption services from its core purpose (to grossly paraphrase, a requirement for receiving federal money).\nBut really dude, calm down.
539232
So Fine is a moron.  Ignore her idiotic answer.\n\nHere is the right answer:\n\n1.  Congress writes the laws but cannot pass them nor determine their Constitutionality.\n\n2.  The President signs the laws but cannot write them nor determine their constitutionality.\n\n3.  The Supreme Court determines the laws constitutionality but cannot write them nor sign them\n\n\nEnd of story.
391716
A president's power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington.\n\nThough constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the President's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and his power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant. (The exact limits of what a President can do with the military without Congressional authorization are unknow, even today)\n\nThere are checks and balances to assure the government is ran according to the constitution.  There are always ways to influence, but the body has more influence on the president, then vise versa.\n\nThe constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; it depends largely on the leadership and the political influence of the President. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One. Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality.\n\nTo improve their working relationships with Congress, presidents in recent years have set up a Congressional Liaison Office in the White House. Presidential aides keep abreast of all important legislative activities and try to persuade senators and representatives of both parties to support administration policies.\n\n\nHope this helps...
674163
If the House holds firm, no bill will be passed and things will remain as they are.  The House has passed a bill that does not have a path to citizenship but instead has major border security improvements and greater penalties for those violating immigration laws or encouraging illegal immigration.  The Senate did not approve that Bill as being too draconian and not containing the other elements Bush wanted, and is trying to get enough similarity of thought within the Senate to pass their own version of a Bill.  Once done, the Senate and House have to negotiate their bills into one that both the Senate and House will vote on, yes or no.  \n\nIf there are truly fundamental differences between the negotiators for the House and Senate Bills, there would likely be no agreement, and hence no change in law.\n\nEven if the House Bill is passed as is, I truly think the President would veto it, and I don't think it has enough support to overcome a veto.
293242
1) Appointment for life as chosen by the president. That's a balance of powers, how?? Oh, and for the immediate response of "congress can veto" - yes, they can, but if there's just one year where the congress is swayed one way or the other, that "for life" part affects the next 30 years or so. \n2) They have the final word. No one gets to veto them once they make up their mind. Again, not too much balance there.
441411
Either Congress can pass a bill, or States can call for a convention.  Congress's bill must be passed by a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses, and the President can't veto the bill.  2/3 of the states may also call for a constitutional convention to draft a proposal.
762429
No because l really think Bush will actually do a better job with the Democrats in control of Congress. While he had no checks and balances there was no reason for him to actually do any real legislating. Now he has no choice but to work with congress without having a blank check that is stamped by congress. He can either work with congress or be a lame duck.
911061
1.  It would be political suicide for the dems to attempt such a thing.\n\n2.  If we get a draft, it will be Charlie Rangel's baby.  \n\n3.  Wait until your new Congress takes their seats, and watch what they do.\n\n4.  The veto power is just that:  The President's right to veto.  It's true for every President, and Mr. Bush did not invent it.\n\nHappy Thanksgiving.
860760
The President and the Congress will both have to make compromises which is what always happens when the two are of opposite parties. If Bush vetoes all of the bills, Congress will not push through any of the legislation he proposes. That is what always happens in this type of circumstance. .So no, you will not be "safe".
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