BadHairDecades
Member
- Reaction score
- 4
With their 2/3 veto, almost nothing can pass without their signature. Hopefully they are centrists.
They appoint many judges and cabinet members.
They get to interpret and execute the law. Sometimes they can really reach when interpreting the law.
Since they have so much power with the executive orders and appointments, I think the veto should only apply to 3/5 or less.
People say laws should be difficult to pass, which is why 2/3 of both houses is good. But what if you want to overturn a bad law? You need 2/3 of both houses. 51% being able to change laws actually works to bring us closer to the center with each new law proposed that is passed or shot down.
One person can't represent the will of everyone, and requires so much money to win the race. I propose removing the presidential veto, and governor vetos. They should just administer and appoint.
They appoint many judges and cabinet members.
They get to interpret and execute the law. Sometimes they can really reach when interpreting the law.
Since they have so much power with the executive orders and appointments, I think the veto should only apply to 3/5 or less.
People say laws should be difficult to pass, which is why 2/3 of both houses is good. But what if you want to overturn a bad law? You need 2/3 of both houses. 51% being able to change laws actually works to bring us closer to the center with each new law proposed that is passed or shot down.
One person can't represent the will of everyone, and requires so much money to win the race. I propose removing the presidential veto, and governor vetos. They should just administer and appoint.