Talk:Veto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Halo[edit]

Is the information about the use veto in the computer game Halo really so central to the concept that it should be in the first paragraph? Is this a major usage arround the world? Surely this would be better placed in a small paragraph at the end of the page.

-- I totally agree that i am stupid. What rubbish to put in the first paragraph. I'm Hulu gumby pump yolks Curdle birdies.

U.S. state governor veto[edit]

It would be nice if we could verify whether or not all US state's governors have veto power so that we could remove the unprofessional looking "perhaps all" phrase from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.226.193 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 February 2005.

This is no longer in the article. Governors can veto, though they may be some particular nuances per state. -- Centrx 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland[edit]

In Switzerland, the government cannot stop legislation by itself, but 50'000 voters or eight cantons can demand that a law enacted or certain treaties ratified by the Federal Assembly be made subject to a binding popular referendum. When this constitutional rule was introduced in the 19th century, it was widely referred to as the "people's veto".

Is this 50k figure the same as since the introduction? Or has it been changed since then. Either way it's an interesting point that needs to be clarified. 50k in the 19th century would have presumably been a much larger percentage of the population and therefore likely a lot harder to achieve just to get the referendum (I guess it would have been at least 10% of the population, probably more)... Nil Einne 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC). SVIET is one of the famous and well knowned institution of technology in Punjab. It is ranked among 20 best B-schools in the world.[reply]


Papal Veto[edit]

Can there be an entry for the veto used in papal elections - last persons so affected Mariano Cardinal Rampolla and Pius X - there were a number of others. Jackiespeel 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if that fits the article. This article is about heads of state vetoing legislation. Otherwise any time a ruler has said "no" to an idea, that would be considered a veto under this article. Right? --Hyphen5 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the phrase that implied that the term veto came from this, not the case. Also, can someone with some Latin knowledge please elaborate a little more on the etymology? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.7 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 'Papal' veto is called jus exclusivae, exercised by Cardinals on the direction of Catholic Monarchs. There is a wiki entry on "jus exclusivae" which could be possibly merged or linked with "veto". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.152.89 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jus Exclusivae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.152.89 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal[edit]

In Portugal, the president has veto powers in the following cenario:

If by any chance a law is proposed by the ruling party, that violates (in the President's view) the Portuguese Constitution, he/she has the power to issue a veto on that law, thereby forbidding it. However, the government can still make an appeal to a special court, the "Constitutional court", made by a body of judges, that together issue a verdict approving or rejecting the president's decision. --Netshark 09:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you reference it, you should include that. --Hyphen5 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese President can also use a "pocket veto", simply by not promulgating the law voted by parliament. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

1. I am tempted to delete that section about how the presidential veto is "an irony and a paradox". Is that paragraph really necessary? It moves from exposition to analysis. Isn't it kind of unencyclopedic? At the very least, it's unsourced. --Hyphen5 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. In the introductory paragraphs, we mention the origin of the veto had something to do with the Roman Senate. Shouldn't we expand upon that in its own section? Does anyone have any details about that? --Hyphen5 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here there is some information about them.--FAR 11:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delaying veto[edit]

there is the third kind of veto - dalaying veto. If veto is set by any party, it can not be overruled by anyone else, but the legislation has to be taken off the agenda and adopted later - after the disagreeing parties have come to a consensus.


Australia[edit]

I added a heap of stuff about veto powers in Australia. I am an Aussie, and I wanted to encourage info about other Commonwealth countries, so the article doesn't look umbalanced (and about other countries too, of course). I think this is a neat article. There are lots of interesting and strange examples of the veto being used by different officers of state and legislatures. For example, when King Badouin refused to assent to the Belgian abortion act, and was declared unfit to rule so the act could pass. We should try and find examples like that. Cheers all!--Gazzster 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

Someone chopped off %70 of this article in September 2008, and no one seems to have noticed, rendering it little more than a stub. I've reverted it, and tried to do some cleanup, but it needs the help of a comparative political scientist, and perhaps a section on usage of this procedure in non-political systems (Roberts Rules of Order, for instance). Either way, PLEASE look at the byte count in the history before you reverse vandalism. That's how vandal edits get embedded in to articles. Thanks you T L Miles (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threaten to veto[edit]

I don't really see why that's there. Maybe if there were actually an article about, or with information on threats to veto, but it just links to the article for the word "threaten". I'm removing it, I guess you can put it back if you think there's a good reason for it to be there, but it just seems silly to me. 65.78.144.186 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

As far as I know Germany has a de facto presidential veto, as the federal president can refuse to sign a bill into law and thereby force it to be changed or abandoned. Horst Köhler has done that a few times. -- Imladros (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only legislation?[edit]

The opening paragraph refers to legislation. In the USA, the term is used only in reference to legislation. But the former power of certain states (Austria, France?) to veto papal elections is not about legislation. Roman tribunes could veto executive action, and whether the Roman Senate's power was legislative in nature is something I have doubts about. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspensive Veto[edit]

Suspensive veto is a redirect to veto. However, suspensive veto is not described in the article. I encourage editors with knowledge of the topic to add an explanation to this article. patsw (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, it just means a formal power to delay implementation of laws. Theoretically seems a much more defensible concept than what is presently widespread (like on the UN-SC for example). I also take it that UK currently has this system, and that the original French republic did also (does anyone know how long their king's veto was supposed to have effect?). Where in the structure of this article would an explanation best fit? Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/veto override[edit]

The veto override info is already in this article. Rather than merge that article (because it has no additional useful information), I'd like to make that article a redirect to this one. Johnathlon (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Veto[edit]

Despite the information in The Book of States 2012, Pa. Const. art. IV, sec. 15 requires the approval of 2/3 of all those elected in each house to override a veto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.216.67 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Veto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

The text about the veto is not precise. We have to distinguish between the theoreticall royal veto (none royal veto never has been since the end of the dictatorship), the Senate veto and veto of the government for bills which will increase the waste — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMIMCP (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebalance[edit]

let's rebalance to reflect reality for better future of this planet, as now as possible

China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States of America -> China, Europe, India, Russia, US (I preserve alphabet)

effects: decision making will no longer be only for northern part of planet, religional/political/cultural equilibrium will change to the state, that's closer to mankind distribution and mankind itself, India would probably put new ideas into system (new ideas are always good stuff)

thanx

mooph

Lords[edit]

"The House of Lords used to have an effective power of veto by refusing to concur in bills adopted by the House of Commons." We have to be a bit careful - this is a completely different type of veto. If the right of one of the two chambers of a bicameral legislature to block legislation is a veto, why isn't the right of the US Senate or US House to block legislation also mentioned? In effect this statement is conflating two different types of veto. The entire rest of the article is about vetoes by presidents, kings, governors or tribunes. A legislative chamber voting against something is a different matter. 13:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.171.174 (talk)

I agree completely with your reasoning and have removed the paragraph in question. If this belongs in the article then so would endless discussion of the powers of the upper house of all the world's bicameral legislatures. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reorg[edit]

I am incubating a reorg of this article at User:Visviva/Veto. It is still quite incomplete but involves some significant structural changes, so I wanted to mention it here in case people have opinions/suggestions. In addition to adding sections for the typology and theory of vetoes, the major change is to greatly increase the number of countries covered, relying as much as possible on comparative scholarship. Each country gets one paragraph, with a "further reading" link steering the reader/editor to an article where they can find additional context and where any additional details could be added (which is most commonly "Politics of X"). I am experimenting with a bulleted-paragraphs format that I am not entirely sold on, but think it is more satisfactory in this context than a table, and considerably more satisfactory than the blizzard of L2 headers this article would have if it were scaled up in its current structure. This reorg would involve spinning off the US material to a separate article (rather overdue I think), and possibly also offloading some of the UK, AU and CA material to the extent it is salvageable and non-redundant.

As a side note, as I bumble along I am running into an underlying ambiguity as to the scope of this article -- is it a general article on "veto" that encompasses all legal powers that are treated as veto powers in reliable secondary sources, or is it only about the more cohesive topic of executive vetoes of legislation? -- but I am not sure if that is the sort of ambiguity that can or should be resolved in this sort of article. For purposes of the reorg, I am aiming to keep the article content focused on but not strictly limited to traditional executive vetoes. -- Visviva (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think this is about ready (for a certain limited sense of "ready"), so if nobody squawks I will plan to apply it to the article shortly. It is still only a pale shadow of what a proper treatment of the subject matter would involve, but I think at least it is gesturing in the right general direction, so I hope it can provide a foundation for further growth and improvement. -- Visviva (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now applied the rewrite. Please edit mercilessly. -- Visviva (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veto&oldid=1210330657"