What Exactly Is The Point (Of The U.S. Senate Vote Today)?
April 26, 2007 (6 Responses)
THE NEWS sites are buzzing today with the latest announcement that the US Senate has voted to approve a bill which requires US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within 11 months.
This latest development follows a vote in the US House of Representatives which makes further funding of the war in Iraq conditional on a timetable for a US troop pullout, but here’s the rub…
This Democrat-sponsored bill will now go before President George Bush for approval, but of course he has said he will veto it immediately. Point blank. End of story.
So perhaps someone (stateside) can explain to me what the point of the House of Representatives and Senate bringing such a bill in front of Bush is exactly? Perhaps I don’t understand the subtle nuances of the American political system enough or maybe I’m disadvantaged because I’m observing the proceedings from the outside looking in (from Europe)… but I just don’t see the point of all that effort when the President can – and will – simply veto it.
I mean, it’s not like the veto will come as a surprise to anyone now is it? Is this just some wasted effort for posterity so the history books can record who was on which side of the debate?
Can someone explain this to me please? Thanks.
While it is true that the President has the power to veto the bill being voted on today, that isn’t necessarily the end of the bill. Once the President vetoes a bill, it is returned to the house where it was authored for reconsideration. If that house (in this case the House of Representatives) passes the bill with 2/3 majority and it subsequently receives a 2/3 majority in the opposing house (the Senate), it becomes law despite the Presidential veto.
For reference, this is from Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution.
Hope that helps.
“So perhaps someone (stateside) [I happen to be from San Franciso] can explain to me what the point…is exactly”
The primary points are (a) the 2008 elections, and (b) the desire to avoid be left holding the Iraq bag after those elections, and (c) the desire of a majority of American people to terminate an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq.
The first point is that the Democrats are forcing Republican representatives and senators to cast votes on what will be a series of similar resolutions. Votes opposing the resolutions will then be used against those Republicans during the 2008 campaign.
The corollary of this is that the Democrats want very much to avoid having the situation in Iraq unresolved when a presumably Democratic president and presumably Democratic congress assumes office. If troops are still there, then it’s the Democrats who appear to have “surrendered” if they bring them home…
Finally, most Americans are bored with Iraq and ready for something new. The good news is that and end to Iraq may mean that by 2009 the U.S. will finally be able to come upt with with a foreign policy that’s *not* based almost entirely on the U.S. military’s superior ability to kill people and destroy property…
The point is to give Bush a clear chance to end the war. If he refuses, he’ll have to explain why. It also gives ammo in future elections to opponents of those who voted against it.
The war contrary to the will of the American people, demonstrating that Bush doesn’t care is the point of the Bill.
There are two points Congress passing a bill that the president threatens to veto.
First, the veto is not an everyday tool for the president. It is threatened far more then it is actually used, and using vetoes too often tends to make any president less popular. Granted, President Bush already has a very low approval rate, but continuing to take actions without public support will cause his supporters who are up for re-election in 2008 (aka republican congressmen) to distance themselves from him by breaking ranks on more issues.
Second, Congress can override the veto with enough votes. If the president chooses to veto this bill, and then 2/3 of congress passes the bill a second time, the bill will pass anyway. If united, Congress has far more power then the president.
Thanks for the feedback folks.
Does anyone expect that the veto won’t be exercised by Bush at this point? I know he is in a ‘lame duck’ presidency and can’t return (so therefore has nothing to loose) but is there any particular reason why he wouldn’t veto?
I think a lot of it stems from the fact that he babbles on and on about how he wants to bring our troops home, and at the same time promises to veto a bill that will do just that. At this point, he is just trying to see if he can bully congress into doing whatever he wants. From my stand point, if he vetoes, he will be say ‘F*ck you’ to the American people and our troops. No one is happy with the way he’s running things, it is his ego that makes him want to stay in Iraq, not common sense (if he actually has any of that). I think he is just trying to prove something to daddy.