Since 1789, the Constitution has granted the President the authority to veto legislation passed by Congress. The threat of a veto in many cases precipitates compromise on the content of a bill that would be otherwise mired in debate before it reached the President. The "•regular veto is a qualified negative veto, which necessitates a two-thirds vote by Congress to be overridden. The "•pocket veto, on the other hand, is exercised when a bill sits on the President's desk without being signed before Congress has adjourned (and is therefore unable to override the veto). Opponents of the pocket veto allege that its absolute nature grants the President excessive power. They liken it to a prerogative of the English Kings that the Framers vehemently despised. The argument also embraces a vast body of commentary on the "•Imperial Presidency, that is, the growing accumulation of power in the executive relative to the legislative branch.
These arguments, in claiming an imbalance of federal powers, misrepresent the pocket veto. Unlike the royal prerogative, the pocket veto is exercised by a democratically-elected leader pursuant to a clearly defined constitutional procedure in which presentation of a bill by Congress may be arranged so as to thwart the possible execution of the pocket veto. Moreover, an absolute veto forecloses further action on a proposal whereas Congress may overcome a pocket veto by instituting a reintroduction and passage of the rejected bill in a subsequent term.
The "•Imperial Presidency developed from the encroachment of executive action into areas where it has been assumed that the legislative branch retains supremacy. The legislative process, however, clearly orders shared responsibility between the President and Congress. One should not mistake Presidential powers granted to block legislation for those that would, in effect, supplant congressional authorization. The latter threatens to override the constitutional system of checks and
balances; the former situation, typified by the pocket veto, is a part of that system of checks and balances.
The arguments raised in Kennedy and Barnes implicitly claim that a regular veto would be overridden, or not exercised at all. Consequently, the pocket veto grants the President a special political tool against "•popular will as exercised by Congress. Herein lies the fundamental disagreement over the pocket veto. Opponents press for the President to defer to a seemingly inevitable congressional victory while proponents of this second type of veto stand behind its historical use by the President to stall or delay legislation he thinks unwise. If circumspection and
deliberation are the more valued aspects of the law-making process, even the most blatantly political use of the pocket veto passes muster. Historical practice favours the President's role as an interloper.
1) As used in last line of the passage, the word "•interloper most nearly means:A. one who unjustly assumes power through the use of force.
B. one who acts as a liaison between different parties.
C. one who prevents certain actions from occurring.
D. one who thinks carefully before acting.
E. one who lopes intermittently
2. The author refers to Kennedy and Barnes in the passage in order to:
A. prove that Congress opposes the pocket veto as a limit to its legislative power.
B. suggest that the validity of the pocket veto has been a matter of judicial concern.
C. show how the pocket veto's weaknesses override its strengths.
D. praise how the pocket veto can delay the legislative process.
E. criticise the pocket veto
3. The author suggests that opponents of the pocket veto would most likely agree that:A. the President should not be allowed to exercise legislative authority.
B. use of the pocket veto unfairly removes power from the legislative branch.
C. Congress should have the right to override the pocket veto.
D. the absolute veto should be reinstated by Congress.
E. pocket veto is unconstitutional in character
Can we give your thoughts on each of the options - why wrong options are wrong and why correct option is correct
These arguments, in claiming an imbalance of federal powers, misrepresent the pocket veto. Unlike the royal prerogative, the pocket veto is exercised by a democratically-elected leader pursuant to a clearly defined constitutional procedure in which presentation of a bill by Congress may be arranged so as to thwart the possible execution of the pocket veto. Moreover, an absolute veto forecloses further action on a proposal whereas Congress may overcome a pocket veto by instituting a reintroduction and passage of the rejected bill in a subsequent term.
The "•Imperial Presidency developed from the encroachment of executive action into areas where it has been assumed that the legislative branch retains supremacy. The legislative process, however, clearly orders shared responsibility between the President and Congress. One should not mistake Presidential powers granted to block legislation for those that would, in effect, supplant congressional authorization. The latter threatens to override the constitutional system of checks and
balances; the former situation, typified by the pocket veto, is a part of that system of checks and balances.
The arguments raised in Kennedy and Barnes implicitly claim that a regular veto would be overridden, or not exercised at all. Consequently, the pocket veto grants the President a special political tool against "•popular will as exercised by Congress. Herein lies the fundamental disagreement over the pocket veto. Opponents press for the President to defer to a seemingly inevitable congressional victory while proponents of this second type of veto stand behind its historical use by the President to stall or delay legislation he thinks unwise. If circumspection and
deliberation are the more valued aspects of the law-making process, even the most blatantly political use of the pocket veto passes muster. Historical practice favours the President's role as an interloper.
1) As used in last line of the passage, the word "•interloper most nearly means:A. one who unjustly assumes power through the use of force.
B. one who acts as a liaison between different parties.
C. one who prevents certain actions from occurring.
D. one who thinks carefully before acting.
E. one who lopes intermittently
2. The author refers to Kennedy and Barnes in the passage in order to:
A. prove that Congress opposes the pocket veto as a limit to its legislative power.
B. suggest that the validity of the pocket veto has been a matter of judicial concern.
C. show how the pocket veto's weaknesses override its strengths.
D. praise how the pocket veto can delay the legislative process.
E. criticise the pocket veto
3. The author suggests that opponents of the pocket veto would most likely agree that:A. the President should not be allowed to exercise legislative authority.
B. use of the pocket veto unfairly removes power from the legislative branch.
C. Congress should have the right to override the pocket veto.
D. the absolute veto should be reinstated by Congress.
E. pocket veto is unconstitutional in character
Can we give your thoughts on each of the options - why wrong options are wrong and why correct option is correct
