Vote Charlie!

Allow fair partial veto

Veto power should not be practically limited as bill size and importance increase, and unrelated riders should not be allowed on critical, or any, bills.

With only an all or nothing veto, presidential authority decreases when Congress chooses to bundle what could have otherwise been separate legislation, especially when parts are critical and urgent. There should also be a more efficient process for removing provisions, especially budgetary ones.

Partial veto powers have gone too far in some states, especially in Wisconsin. The executive should not be able to enact any law Congress would not support. Attempts to ban riders by requiring content of a bill to fall within the scope of the title in the United Kingdom&oldid=733015773) lead to circumvention through vague titles.

I support allowing the president to edit bills as desired, after which Congress can approve the edited bill by a simple majority vote, override the partial veto by two thirds vote or further edit the bill and send it back to the executive.

Join the movement!

Show your support by signing up to be among the lucky few notified when I manage to blog. This could be as often as once a day or as infrequently as yearly!