The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Legislative Branch should have the power to override a president's veto

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 298 times Debate No: 89945
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




1st round acceptance, 2nd round arguments, 3rd round rebuttal.

My claim is that the legislative branch should have the power to override a president's veto.


I accept. I take the position that that the ability for the Senate to override presidential vetos to be abolished.
Debate Round No. 1


There are two main reasons that the legislative branch should have the power to override the president's veto are as follows:

1. It would help stabilize the country if the president has problems. When I say this, I mean that if the Legislative Branch sends a bill to the president, and the bill is a bill that would be very good for our country, then if the president vetoes it because he is bribed, corrupt, or ignorant, the Legislative Branch will watch powerlessly as the bill floats powerlessly into the abyss. If the Legislative Branch has the power to override veto, then the bill, if it is good with all of the House and the Senate, will be passed, and the country will hopefully be a better place.

2. It would only be used in emergencies. Consider this: out of the 1884 regular presidential vetoes, only 104, or 7.1%, have been overriden by the Legislative Branch. This means that the Legislative Branch will not abuse this power to override random vetoes the president would give to bad bills.

Good luck Con, and take care!


I am in support of getting rid of the veto power of the Senate. The reasons are based in that this government is based on checks and balances. All branches make sure the others do not get too powerful. What can the president do to check Congress: veto...that is it. What can the Congress do to check to president: they approve EVERYTHING. Cabinet positions, court judges, war or police actions, treaties, and trade agreements. The president lacks a lot of power and Congress can block ANYTHING if they don't like it. Or should I say if the majority party does not like the president. Such as it was with president Andrew Johnson. He tried time and time again to deal with reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. He was a democrat. The only one left really in politics(democrats were the South). Everything else in the government was controlled by the Republican party and anything that had Andrew Johnson's support was going to be blocked. Most of his his vetoes were overturned, delaying action to reconstruct the house. We need to take parties into consideration now more than ever. The two parties never agree just because they do not like the other side. We saw this in the Iran Nuclear deal and now with the Supreme Court nomination. It doesn't matter who or what it is, the majority party will try to stop the president from doing anything if he is of the other party. The override would only cause more gridlock than we already have. With one party too powerful, any bill can be passed with this override...good or bad. We really need to consider that times have changed and we need to evaluate the powers of government.
Debate Round No. 2


Your argument has many inaccurate facts in it.

First of all, the House of Representatives does not have veto power. Instead, it can override the president's veto.

Second, to override the president's veto, Congress must have a supermajority, not a majority.

That said, on to my rebuttal.

1. Your checks and balances argument: As I said earlier, Congress must have a supermajority to override the president's veto. Considering that, generally, Congress is 50% democrats and 50% republicans, so it is very difficult to actually achieve a Congressional override. Here's some historical evidence:

Out of the 1884 regular presidential vetoes, only 104, or 7.1%, have been overriden by the Legislative Branch. (

This statistic shows that the checks and balances system will not be overturned with keeping the Congressional override power.

2. You "there will be enormous gridlock" argument: Andrew Jackson is the exception, not the rule. Generally, Congress is 50% democrats and 50% republicans. Occasionally, a large event happens (like the American Civil War) and the balance is overturned, but generally the balance stays the same.

I await my opponent's response.


I misstated what I meant to say in the beginning of the second round. As it stands now, the ability to override a presidential veto is a power of the House and the Senate. Yes, history has shown that overrides are not common and may remain so, but we must understand that politics are changing and becoming more polarized. The idea that one party will take control of Congress and thus the government is more and more likely. The whole political system gives no reason why one part should compromise with the other. With this override available, the president can be rendered powerless to stop any bad bills from passing which was the case with President Johnson(Not Jackson, no big deal). The veto power of the president is necessary to maintain the balance of government. Congress has so many more checks over the president, and losing this one check of overriding vetoes does not cause any major shifts. I greatly enjoyed this debate. The pro side did a great job.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by breakingamber 6 months ago
It does exist. I am arguing that it is a good idea.
Posted by reeseLance 6 months ago
I am confused.. The 2/3 override certainly exists, I'm not going crazy right?
Posted by Seagull 6 months ago
... They do.
No votes have been placed for this debate.