180
House Republicans move to override Trump vetoes in rare show of defiance (www.axios.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 10 months ago

Ill believe it when I see it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 42 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    One of the bills, to provide clean water to rural areas in Colorado, if I remember correctly, was passed nearly unanimously in both houses. To override the veto only requires 2/3 of both houses.

    It's just my personal opinion, but I think that if a lawmaker votes for legislation and then doesn't vote to override the veto, and it's not some extreme situation, they should be ejected from any government office and pilloried publicly for wasting taxpayer time and making light of their serious duties. Let the people pelt them with rotting fruit.

    When I say "extreme situation", I refer to the idea that some vital information comes out about the bill and that's the only reason the President vetoes it, to get a better version of the bill passed. Like there might be some technically important legal jargon in the bill that seems otherwise innocuous, and nobody realizes at first. Or the situation the bill is supposed to address significantly changes in the meantime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    I mean, you could just get rid of the ability of the president to veto in the first place and bypass all this nonsense. I’m about to go to sleep for the night so maybe I’m missing something but it feels pointless to me that the executive branch even has that power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 46 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    The veto makes sense in the context of functional checks and balances. The point of a veto is it allows the President to force the legislature to reconsider and revise a bill that may have only passed by simple majority, requiring them to create a "better" bill that is palatable to 2/3rds of representatives rather than 50%+1.

    However, as with the rest of the American experiment, it assumes the entire operation in good faith, which hasn't been the case for decades.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Looks great on paper, doesn’t work in practice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It doesn't work when you don't have a defined mechanism to enforce the balance after the check. These historical documents were written when your word meant something. Like they said above it works when people are doing things in good faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    The balance is supposed to be the people. Unfortunately, the American people don't care about corruption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I don't quite agree with your assessment. There are not a whole lot of mechanisms in the constitution for "the people" do more than vote every couple of years or violently opposed the elected government. Look at fetterman and sinema. Both turn from what seemed to be progressive candidates to the main reason several legislative things fell through. I'm sure several people wish they could do something more immediate than wait until their term is up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    In none of the more or less functional democracies does the head of government have the right to veto bills. Granting legislative powers to the executive is not a check or balance, it disrupts the separation of powers.

    You can achieve a check on the legislative by using a bicameral system, as many systems do, though in practice it doesn't end up resulting in significantly better governance than unicameral systems that are also found among the aforementioned group. It's far more important to ensure no single party, faction or (especially) individual has a monopoly on any of the branches of government. You might be surprised how little power the most powerful individual has in any such democracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Granting legislative powers to the executive is not a check or balance, it disrupts the separation of powers.

    It is not a legislative power though. A veto is not the executive writing a law. A veto is the executive saying "hey Senate, this bill sucks and I don't want to implement it. Go back to the drawing board and either make something I like, or make something that all of you like more than 2/3." Its a forced reconsideration that can avoid hastily written laws passed on a 50+1 and create laws that are more broadly palatable to the country as a whole.

    Again, it makes sense in a rational system, with rational people- something we haven't had since before Reagan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The veto has its purposes, but maybe don't allow a veto on a bill that passed with a veto proof super majority to begin with and waste everyone's time and money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Actually that sounds like a very fair compromise; I really like your thinking!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    An alternative option as well.

    If the president veto's a bill passed by super majority, whatever the difference is to make the vote fail, that many people need to actively step forward to say their vote will change to oppose it.

    If enough people step forward that voted for it, then a new vote happens.

    Otherwise, nothing happens and no effort needs to be expended on it. The senate can just shrug it's shoulders and move on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    At the very least I don’t understand why he even has the option if the bill passed the threshold already. I can understand the concept of the veto, but isn’t it a waste of time if the vote was already veto-proof.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Can someone paste an archive link?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    For sure: House Republicans move to override Trump vetoes in rare show of defiance

    Not wild about the style of it; like…I can decide what to care about from the facts, I don’t need the site to tell me why something matters.

    House GOP leaders are teeing up a vote Thursday to override the first two vetoes of President Trump's second term.

    Why it matters: It's unusual for the Republican-led Congress to openly defy Trump.

    The measures are expected to pass the House with bipartisan support, two sources told Axios. Given Trump's vetoes, some Republicans could peel off after initially backing the bills. Overriding the vetoes would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate — a rarely met threshold.

    Driving the news: Trump rejected a measure to ease payments for a long-planned water pipeline supporting southeastern Colorado and another that would have expanded the Miccosukee Tribe's reserved area in the Florida Everglades, the White House announced last week.

    Both bills cleared Capitol Hill in December with bipartisan support. Politico first reported that the House would vote to override the vetoes. Zoom in: The Miccosukee Tribe has been at odds with the White House over its plans to build its "Alligator Alcatraz" immigrant detention center.

    Florida lawmakers in both chambers backed the bill. Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) said it was about "fairness and conservation." In his veto notice, Trump accused the tribe of obstructing his immigration policies and said the bill benefitted "special interests."

    The water pipeline legislation, championed by Colorado lawmakers, would provide drinking water to communities in southeastern Colorado, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.

    But Trump said the bill would "continue the failed policies of the past by forcing Federal taxpayers to bear even more of the massive costs of a local water project." He added, "Enough is enough."

    What they're saying: "This isn't over," Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a Trump ally, posted on X after Trump's veto. The water pipeline project sits in Boebert's district.

    A White House spokesperson referred Axios to Trump's statement on the veto when asked for comment on Boebert's statement.

    Between the lines: It's the latest example of Trump's clashes with MAGA women.

    Boebert defied Trump late last year when she became one of four House Republicans to sign a discharge petition forcing a vote on releasing Epstein-related files — despite White House pressure to withdraw her name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    What if this was a setup. The Republicans know they are unpopular and the mid terms look bad for them. So they had Trump veto a popular bill that passed with full support of Congress. So now they can look like they defied Trump and did something good for their voters. I just smell bullshit with this whole circus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •