First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.

The President might not sign the bill, however. If he specifically rejects the bill, called a veto, the bill returns to Congress. There it is voted on again, and if both houses of Congress pass the bill again, but this time by a two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President's signature. This is called "overriding a veto," and is difficult to do because of the two-thirds majority requirement.




and

from article two of the constitution



The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment





just thought ID throw that out there, get tired of people misplacing the responsibility for so many t hings on the office of president when most of those responsibilities lie primarily in CONGRESS

Amen, msharmony!

But the President dosnt have to sigm them either.....it seems he does though......that's whats bothering me.....the fact they sign anything to get through what they want through and other put things because they know others will sign anything to get what they want.....its ridiculous actually

here is the rub, there is ALOT to be done,

sometimes we have to decide based upon whats best in the OVERALL as opposed to in the impulsive and emotional moment


the President doesnt HAVE to sign the bills congress passes for them to be law, and even when he VETOS them, that doest stop them from becoming laws

so to consider the time and effort spent on something that a majority of the government has already AGREED to and veto it and send it back to be approved anyway,,,is not as logical as people keep believing it would be,,,,


there is too much to be done, and there are too many issues in a 'bill' to stall the whole thing whenever one part is not to our liking,,,

Thanks teach but I have already passed all my four years of political science exams

There is what is called the "pocket veto", the whole purpose of which is to prevent a bill from going back to Congress. By refusing to neither sign nor veto the bill, the President is able simply set aside until the bill is forgotten about.

So, one might ask the question: Why isn't the pocket veto used more often?

Well, the Constitution demands that the President decide yay or nay on a bill within 10 days, so long as Congress is in session. If time expires without a decision, the bill automatically becomes law.

So, a pocket veto can only be done when Congress is about to adjourn.

Anytime a bill passes both the House and the Senate by more than two-thirds, it is pointless to veto a bill, since the veto will likely be overturned. In this case, a pocket veto or a declaration of Unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court are the only hopes for preventing a bill from becoming law.

So, we now have to ask: Has Congress become TOO powerful?

if the shoe doesnt fit, dont put it on

but too many seem to think a US president actually creates our laws,,,,,

only when things arent going our way,,,it seems

but I think they dont have any more or less power than they ever had,,people are just now trying to learn or think they know how government is set up to work,,,,

only when things arent going our way,,,it seems

but I think they dont have any more or less power than they ever had,,people are just now trying to learn or think they know how government is set up to work,,,,