Veto
The word veto comes from Latin and literally means '[I] forbid'. It is used to denote that a certain party has the right to unilaterally stop a certain piece of legislation. A veto therefore provides unlimited power to stop changes, but not to adopt them.
In the United States, the president has the ability to veto legislation that has passed Congress, but this right is not absolute. A 2/3 supermajority of both chambers can pass a law, even against a presidential veto; however, if the proposed law has only a simple majority, the president's veto is decisive.
In the UN Security Council, the five permanent members (Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States) have veto power. If any of these countries votes against a proposal, it is rejected, even if the rest of the members have voted in favour. This right is justified in that it favors the fact that decisions are not made without a consensus among all the members of the council. It is the so-called principle of unity of powers.
From the 16th century to 1903, the monarchs of France, Spain and Austria (the latter as heir to the Holy Roman Empire) had the right of papal veto to veto a candidate for the papacy.
The concept of veto has its origin in the positions of Roman consul and tribune of the common people. There were two consuls each year; either of them could block the military or civilian action of the other. Tribunes had the power to unilaterally block any action by a Roman magistrate or decrees passed by the Roman Senate.
History
Roman veto
The institution of the veto, known to the Romans as intercessio, was adopted by the Roman Republic in the 18th century VI a. C. to allow the tribunes to protect the interests of the mandate of the plebeians (common citizens) from the interference of the patricians, who dominated the Senate. A tribune's veto did not prevent the senate from passing a bill, but it did mean that it was denied the force of law. Tribunes could also use the veto to prevent a bill from being brought before the plebeian assembly. The consuls also had veto power, as decision-making usually required the consent of both consuls. If they disagreed, either of them could invoke the intercessio to block the action of the other. The veto was an essential component of the Roman conception of power that was exercised not only to manage the affairs of the state, but to moderate and restrict the power of high officials and state institutions.
A notable use of the Roman veto occurred in the land reform of the Gracchus brothers, initially led by the tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. C. When Graco's fellow tribune Marco Octavio vetoed the reform, the Assembly voted to remove him under the theory that a tribune should represent the interests of the commoners. Later, senators outraged by the reform assassinated Gracchus and several of his supporters, sparking a period of internal political violence in Rome.
Liberum veto
In the constitution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the XVII and XVIII, all bills had to be approved by the Sejm or "Seimas" (parliament) unanimously, and if any legislator invoked the liberum veto, this would not only veto that bill but also all previous legislation passed during the session, and dissolve the legislative session itself. The concept originated from the idea of 'Polish democracy', as any Pole of noble extraction was considered as good as any other, no matter how low or high his material status. The increasing use of this veto power crippled the power of the legislature and, combined with a series of weak figurehead kings, eventually led to partitions and the dissolution of the Polish state at the end of the century XVIII.
Rise of modern vetoes
The modern executive veto derives from the European institution of royal assent, in which the monarch's consent was required for bills to become law. This, in turn, had evolved from earlier royal systems in which laws were simply made by the monarch, as was the case, for example, in England until the reign of Edward III in the XIV. In England itself, the monarch's power to withhold royal assent was not used after 1708, but was widely used in the British colonies. The strong use of this power was mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776.
Following the French Revolution of 1789, the royal veto was hotly debated, and hundreds of proposals were put forward for different versions of the royal veto, such as absolute, suspensive, or non-existent. With the adoption of the French Constitution of 1791, King Louis XVI lost his absolute veto and acquired the power to cast a suspensive veto that could be overridden by a majority vote in two successive sessions of the Legislative Assembly, which would take from four to six years. With the abolition of the monarchy in 1792, the question of the French royal veto became moot.
The presidential veto was conceived by Republicans in the 18th and XIX as a counter-majoritarian tool, limiting the power of a legislative majority. However, some Republican thinkers, such as Thomas Jefferson, advocated eliminating the veto power entirely by to be a relic of the monarchy. To avoid giving the president too much power, most early presidential vetoes, like the power of veto in the United States, were qualified vetoes that the legislature could override. But this was not always the case: the Chilean constitution of 1833, for example, granted the president of that country an absolute veto.
Types
Most modern vetoes are aimed at checking the power of the government, or of a branch of government, most commonly the legislative branch. Thus, in governments with separation of powers, vetoes can be classified according to the branch of government that enacts them: executive veto, legislative veto, or judicial veto.
However, other types of veto power have safeguarded other interests. The denial of royal assent by governors in the British colonies, which continued long after the practice had ended in Britain itself, served as a check of one level of government against another. The veto can also be used to safeguard the interests of certain groups within a country. The veto power of ancient Roman tribunes protected the interests of one social class (the plebeians) against another (the patricians). At the transition from apartheid, a "white veto" to protect the interests of white South Africans, but did not pass. More recently, indigenous vetoes on industrial projects on indigenous lands have been proposed following the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires 'consent' free, prior and informed" of indigenous communities to development projects or resource extraction on their lands. However, many governments have been reluctant to allow such a veto.
Vetos can be classified according to whether the vetoed body can override them and, if so, how. An absolute veto cannot be overridden at all. A qualified veto can be overridden by a supermajority, such as two-thirds or three-fifths. A suspensive veto, also called a suspensive veto, can be overridden by a simple majority, and therefore only serves to delay the entry into force of the law.
Types of executive vetoes
A blanket ban, also called a "block ban" or "total veto", vetoes a piece of legislation as a whole. The partial veto, also called a line veto, allows the executive to object to only a specific part of the law, allowing the rest to stand. An executive with a partial veto has a stronger bargaining position than an executive with overall veto power.
An amended veto or amended remark returns legislation to the legislature with proposed amendments, which the legislature can either adopt or rescind. The effect of legislative inaction can vary: in some systems, if the legislature does nothing, the vetoed bill fails, while in others, the vetoed bill becomes law. Since the amending veto gives the executive a greater role in the legislative process, it is often seen as an indicator of particularly strong veto power.
Some veto powers are limited to budget issues (such as line item vetoes in some US states, or financial veto in New Zealand). Other veto powers (such as in Finland) only apply to non-budgetary matters; some (as in South Africa) only apply to constitutional matters. A veto power that is not limited in this way is known as a "political veto".
One type of budget veto, the curtailment veto, found in several US states, gives the executive the authority to reduce budget appropriations that the legislature has made. When an executive is given multiple powers of different vetoes, the procedures for overriding them may vary. For example, in the US state of Illinois, if the legislature fails to act on an abatement veto, the abatement simply becomes law, while if the legislature fails to act on an amendment veto, the bill of law dies.
A pocket veto is a veto that takes effect simply because the executive or head of state does not take any action. In the United States, the pocket veto can only be exercised near the end of a legislative session; if the deadline for presidential action passes during the legislative session, the bill will simply become law. The legislature cannot override a pocket veto.
Some veto powers are limited in scope. The constitutional veto only allows the executive to veto bills that are unconstitutional; instead, the "political veto" it can be used whenever the executive disagrees with the bill for political reasons. Presidents with a constitutional veto include those of Benin and South Africa.
Legislative veto
A legislative veto is a veto power exercised by a legislative body. It can be a veto exercised by the legislative branch against an action of the executive branch, as in the case of the legislative veto in the United States, which is found in 28 North American states. It can also be a veto power exercised by a house of one bicameral legislature against another, such as was formerly held by members of the Fiji Senate appointed by the Grand Council of Chiefs.
Veto on candidates
In certain political systems, a particular body may exercise a veto over candidates for elected office. This type of veto can also be referred to by the broader term "veto".
Historically, some European Catholic monarchs could veto candidates for the papacy, a power known as the jus exclusivae. This power was last used in 1903 by Franz Joseph I of Austria.
In Iran, the Guardian Council has the power to approve or disapprove candidates, in addition to its veto power over legislation.
In China, following a landslide victory for democracy in the 2019 Hong Kong local elections, in 2021 the National People's Congress passed a law granting the Candidates Eligibility Review Committee, appointed by the Hong Kong Chief Executive, the power to veto candidates for the Hong Kong Legislative Council.
Veto in the political system of Guatemala
It is the act by which the Executive Branch returns to the Congress of the Republic the law that has been sent to it for its sanction and promulgation with the observations, in form or substance, that it deems appropriate, in exercise of its right of veto. The return must be made within fifteen days of receiving the decree, prior agreement taken by the Council of Ministers. (See article 178 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala).
The right of veto in Guatemalan legislation is not absolute, since the Congress of the Republic in exercise of legislative primacy, with the favorable vote of two thirds, can reject it and the Executive must sanction and promulgate the decree. If this were not the case, the Board of Directors of the Congress of the Republic will do so.
Right of veto in Mexico
The veto in Mexico sought in the 1917 Constitution to strengthen the figure of the President of the Republic, but its interpretation, as long as the current Constitution is not modified, is difficult because the veto is a part of the legislative process, and the veto concludes when the Executive enacts or publishes a bill or decree sent by the Congress of the Union, and in accordance with article 72 of the Constitution, the president does not veto laws or decrees, he simply objects to projects.
Right of veto in El Salvador
It is the power of the President of the Republic to veto or stop the law formation process, when he considers any legislative decree inconvenient or unconstitutional. In this sense, he will return it to the Legislative Assembly within eight business days following its receipt, specifying the reasons on which the veto is based. The Legislative Assembly will reconsider the project and can only ratify it with at least two thirds of the votes of the deputies; In such circumstances, the President of the Republic must sanction it and order it to be published. Without prejudice to the foregoing, when the President of the Republic considers that the decree ratified by the Assembly is unconstitutional, he must "address the Supreme Court of Justice within the third business day, so that it, hearing the reasons of both, decides if it is or non-constitutional, no later than fifteen business days. If the Court decides that the project is constitutional, the President of the Republic will be obliged to sanction it and publish it as law" (Art. 138 Cn.).
Veto in the Chilean Constitution
The 1980 Constitution allows the President to veto a project approved by the National Congress, formulating additive (if he wishes to add something), substitutive (modify) or suppressive (eliminate something) observations. The project returns to Congress, but if 2/3 of each chamber agrees, the law is definitively approved.
Contenido relacionado
Politics of Spain
Carlism
Statistics