in what sense is the veto a “qualified negative” power? This is a topic that many people are looking for. bluevelvetrestaurant.com is a channel providing useful information about learning, life, digital marketing and online courses …. it will help you have an overview and solid multi-faceted knowledge . Today, bluevelvetrestaurant.com would like to introduce to you Federalist 73 The Qualified Negative. Following along are instructions in the video below:
Video examines federalist number. 73. By alexander hamilton.
This is another one of hamiltonss papers that has to do with the powers of the presidency. Particularly with the an energetic president from his vision. Here.
Its the provision for the support of the executive and the veto power. Ive kind of titled it the qualified negative to focus less here on presidential salary and more on president abbey validity of the vp legislation. Which was very kind of over shifted with the federals who were just the person would have to mock our obviously just a true promise so essentially from holmes viewpoint in federalist number.
Its the veto that will keep the president independent within our system separation of powers in the united states and checks and balances and it really is the fundamental check that the president has in order to be able to integrate himself into the legislative process and while in earlier federalist papers. There was a discussion about you know why should one individual have this much power from hamiltons vantage point. Its really necessary because the legislature will naturally be the larger of the two branches with more power of overtake.
The presidents of the rest of the branches as it has historically so when we take a look here basically. We have a qualified veto meaning that with a two thirds override. The president is able to to reject legislation from congress.
But congress can then and act. It into law and hamlin says. You know whether its an absolute veto as the king of england had or where there was a qualified veto.
It was an absolute must for the president to be able to have to preserve separation of powers and the first reason why again just to go back to other discussions and federalist papers is that the naturally stronger branch.
Out of the three would be the legislature. Which is why it was you know divided up into two bicameral legislatures of that house in the senate. Naturally.
There was the belief that the legislature would be able to overtake the powers of the president so to quote you know directly from hamilton. And so fed was 73. He says without you know just taking a look here the powers of the veto.
It may gradually be stripped of his authorities by successive resolutions are annihilated by a single vote and in the one mode or the other the legislative and executive powers. Might speedily come to be blended in the same hands. So some you know kind of serious worry here on behalf of of hamilton.
And and the designers of the constitution that without giving the president the ability to be able to check congress that they would eventually kind of turn it into a kind of a parliamentary system in which they took powers away from him.
So in order to be able to create that session. Keep the separation of powers. The veto was necessary the second thing is in relationship to stopping bad legislation or things that were unconstitutional.
The president would also need the veto in order to be able to prevent the legislature from passing policies that were not good and you know one of these kind of controversies associated with that is you know why should one individual have the power to be able to check what all of congress has done on its own and the question really that hamilton raises here is well why do you necessarily think that the legislature is always going to be infallible. It may be closest to the people. But it may make the wrong decisions and the president needs to be there as a bulwark in order to be able to protect peoples constitutional rights.
So as a consequence of that basically saying that this is a good power for the president to have now one of the problems is you know what if the president uses this too much what if the president injects himself too much into the process of the legislature and heres where you really see kind of the inherent conservativism of the founders in the way that they design govern and for the most part they design government to stop things from happening rather than to make them happen quickly. So just a quote here from howell. You know people that are concerned about this your people really concerned about the president using the power to veto too much in stopping legislation.
So they will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of lawmaking and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given point period as much more likely to do good than harm.
Because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury. Which may be may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.
So in other words. The finger on our system of government here is always to stop laws that may in some way take rights away from people even if that means that some laws that may be in the public interest are not passed and again that goes into the entire structure of government and the reason. Why we have the entire separation of powers.
Why we have a republican form of government why we have checks and balances. Why we have an extender republic. Why we have federalism so this is in essence.
Not just a discussion about the presidents power. The veto. But also about the idea of how we prevent any one group from getting too much power in american politics.
Thank you for watching all the articles on the topic Federalist 73 The Qualified Negative. All shares of bluevelvetrestaurant.com are very good. We hope you are satisfied with the article. For any questions, please leave a comment below. Hopefully you guys support our website even more.