• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Bush Vetoes H Res 464 (stem cell research)

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Bush Vetoes H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

I only have a moment, but I just wanted to send out a hearty "FUCK YOU" to President Bush. Quote:President Bush Also Vetoed A Bill That Would Overturn His Careful, Ethical Approach To Stem Cell Research. If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers - for the first time in our history - to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. The President has made it clear to Congress and the American people that he will not allow the Nation to cross this moral line. I was totally expecting this, and yet it's still a kick in the gut.Here's a link to the full release. Edited by: irishrosem at: 6/20/07 2:42 pm
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Bush Vetos H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

Yea, I was watching this on yahoo news. It is very disappointing that a president (who is suppose to represent the people of this country) is going against the wishes of nearly 70% of the population.It's just sad.Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Bush Vetos H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

I think we know where most people here stand on the issue of stem cell research, so the more interesting question to my mind is, what does this decision make you think regarding the presidential power of veto?
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17000
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3500 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Bush Vetos H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

...a much better question, Mad! This is an excellent time to be examining the veto powers. Why should one man have such authority? I'm sure Rose or someone well versed in law and politics can come up with a reasonable answer for this question, but it seems like an abuse of power.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Bush Vetos H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

It's interesting to me in part because I've been reading about medieval politics, and there the situation seems directly inverse. The king was assumed to have the power of legislation (or in the case of the Sacerdotium, the Pope was assumed to have the power of defining doctrine), but their decisions could be vetoed by councils or colleges that were supposed to represent the consent of the people. Which makes it seem all the more curious that we would install a system in which representative bodies craft laws, and a single man weilds the power to veto those laws based on his own beliefs.
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Bush Vetos H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

I have no opinion on the veto issue. The veto system does not seem broken (though I believe W Bush only used two vetos so far during his presidency which is one of the lowest total vetos ever, especially for a two term president). I am more concerned about the system of electing officials than a system of government that has sustained our country for better or for worse and kick started a rapid spread of democracy throughout the world.I believe if the majority of Americans actually elected a president (instead of a electoral college decided upon by plurality instead of true majority) it would make a much bigger difference in effecting government control from the people towards the representative officials. Remember that our current voting system does not require a true majority (50% of the vote) but rather a plurality or the most votes. I will take this opportunity once again to pimp alternative voting systems as a potential answer to our fractured political system and polar partisan two party money dominated system. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) a.k.a. Ranked Choice Voting (IRV) is one such possible alternative although there are other such systems available based on the majority decided elected officials. Accountability is important and the current system makes it easier to get re-elected (or just plain elected in the first place) with being accountable and actually representing the will of the people.So I do not see the Veto power of the president as being a major problem but rather the entire system we currently use to elect the president and put people into power that do not truly reflect the will of the people. Representative Democracy should be representative. Who believes (on either side of the political spectrum) that our current elected officials are actually carrying out their charges? It is more about representing your party than representing your constituency.Okay, rant over
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: Bush Vetos H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

Oh fine, Mad, you couldn't just let me rant, could you? You have to go and ask for something productive. I admit, I haven't done much reading on Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution which houses instructions for Presidential vetoes. "Every Bill...shall be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated..." To my limited understanding, this Presidential power has two parts. First, obviously, is to address the balance of powers. The veto empowers the President to stay any attempts of the most powerful branch of government, Congress, from eroding the powers of the other two branches, particularly her own branch--the Presidency. Secondly, and not as obviously, the veto power is where the President exercises her discretion on constitutional interpretation, as it also empowers the President to prevent legislature that she deems to be unconstitutional. Do I think it is a necessary piece of government? Yes. Do I think it is often abused? Yes. Now after that more useful entry am I allowed to rant a bit more? River: ...though I believe W Bush only used two vetos so far during his presidency... Three, two thirds of which vetoed federal funding for stem cell research.River: I will take this opportunity once again to pimp alternative voting systems as a potential answer to our fractured political system and polar partisan two party money dominated system. I am ready and willing to consider alternatives to the current election system, not limited to the electoral college. Perhaps that's a topic for a different, potentially very interesting, thread.
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: Bush Vetoes H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

BTW, I just want to add that the President isn't required to actually sign the bill for it to become law. If he has a moral objection to legislature that would permit federal funding for stem cell research, there is a third option. He can just not sign and not veto the bill, after ten days it would become law. I think this might have been an attractive alternative for a man who actually has a moral abhorrence to stem cell research, yet serves a public whose majority supports stem cell research. But I never actually expected Bush to take this course; it seems quite evident he intends to force his personal moral agendas onto the public, whether we want them or not.
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Bush Vetoes H Res 464 (stem cell research)

Unread post

Thanks for the correction, it was two vetos until this most recent incident. Am I mistaken or could Congress not over rule a veto with a 2/3 vote? Or has it been way too long since I have studied civics and national government? As long as their is the possibility of an over rule, I fail to understand why people would object to the veto power of the office. Of course a 2/3 vote from Congress is damn near impossible but that is the nature of the system of balance our government is driven by.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”