president bush has veto powers,  the democrats have over ride powers,  how effective over  the veto are  they?
826735
To override a veto from president senate AND house must both vote 2/3. So many republicans would have to side with democrats to override.\n\nGo to site and read\n\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto_override\n\n\nUGH..\n\n.
444308
This has been a very controversial question, because some states have the line item veto, and the US President had it for a few years but it was allowed to lapse.\n\nThe main points of controversy are:\n\n1-Spending the taxpayers' money is under the responsibility of the legislative branch, and the legislative does not have the right to give its powers to another branch, at least without some sort of oversight.\n\n2-The executive is still a party politician, and the ability to strike out specific programs is definitely a weapon that can be used against individual legislators or individual states or localities.
1103073
Thats a good question...I think the Democrats have a really good chance of winning a lot of seats as long as they stick with it they should be able to win them. Republican candidates are trying to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible but I don't think it's going to work
801741
What are you talking about?  What change of power in the White House?  George W. Bush is still President.  The change was in Congress, with a minuscule Dem-bulb plurality in the Senate and the election of a new crop of mostly moderate Dems in the House.  There has not been a real shift in power.
1087055
President Bush is one of the few political leaders who seems to make decisions based on what is right for this country and the world as opposed to the opposition who seem to push for only regaining power for their party.   What is good for this country is bad for the democratic party.
103721
You can check the White House website or the Congressional website.  He has yet to veto any bills that have been presented to him, so if it cleared Congress, it became a law.
184031
The presidents job is basically like the CEO of a company. He has finaly say in everything that comes across his desk but little input into the basic day-to-day operations. Most of that is handled by the board (House and Senate). Most CEO's tend to make decisions based on what is best for the company via a yes or no vote at board meetings. Bush has yet to say no (veto) to anything the board has asked him for. Kings and Queens used to wield a lot more power than they do today. If you look at the Queen of England, she is basically a figurehead, the House of Commons and Prime Minister make the decisions and do the work.
884980
master bush is weak,from liberal stench,and pelosi...at this point bush could not pass any bills or legislation without pelosi,s approval,and she wants the glory now ,,,,the Dem,s must try and fail before bush  and thew republicans can regain control of the game..cheers
1054559
The Ban Gay Marriage law is wrong.  Bush said it himself, people should be able to choose how they live.  That should include the gays too.  I didn't think the Senate had the power to veto a law, I thought only the president did.  I never learned much as far as all that goes, but I still believe that gays should be treated equally.
777242
It is about the manical lunacy of Dubya.  By having a Democratic house, it will hopefully neutralize the power of the president.  Hopefully we have a batch of Dems who have discovered that the actually have a backbone and stand up when Bush decides to do something else crazy. Hopefully each side can recognize that as voters we have had enough of the bs, and it is time to get it together.
932851
The Democrats may have more members, but there were several middle-of-the-road, true Democrats, elected this time around instead of the Liberals posing as Democrats.  I think there will be desention among the ranks there.  But they don't "rule".  Thank God for the power of VETO!!!!
399524
The US president can't under the US Constitution. It lacks the power for a so-called line item veto. A 1996 law allowing for such a veto was struck down.\n\nHowever, most state constitutions provide for such a veto with the exception of  Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont. If you live in the above seven states, it is 4. If you don't it is 2.
621355
Well, for *this* presidency, the percentage is 0.\n\nGeorge Bush has not vetoed a single bill.  Of course,\nhe has issued a few hundred "signing statements" which\nstate his belief that parts of the laws are \nunconstitutional and therefore he won't have to\nfollow them.  Also, with Republican control of\nboth houses, you wouldn't *expect* him to disagree\nwith much legislation.
214975
Clinton did something (with a Republican Congress, mind you) that Bush will never be able to do - balance a budget. Bush has NEVER vetoes a single spending bill that has come across his desk. Dems may be tax-and-spend, but Republicans are cut taxes-and-spend even more. Which is worse? Gotta go with Clinton on this one. He has ineffectual as a Commander-in-Chief but he wasn't afraid to break out the red veto stamp when it was needed.
733417
Bush challenges hundreds of laws\nPresident cites powers of his office\nBy Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  April 30, 2006\nWASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.\nAmong the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.\nLegal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.\nFormer administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.\nBut with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.\n   \n\nFar more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.\nMany legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.\nPhillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.\n''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."\nFor the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.\nPage 2 of 7 -- \nBush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.\nInstead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."\nBut the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority
946434
Believe it or not, I think that even Bush might come to realize that he has no choice but to cooperate with the Democrats. And if the Democrats win the majority in the Senate, they can override any vetos Bush sends their way.
601763
well, these days, it's like weighing power on a gram scale, while we have to weigh Executive power on a freight scale.\n\nbut apart from that, I think that the Senate's ability to confirm or deny presidential appointees is considerable power (it's just that they haven't used it of late).