Talk:List of United States presidential vetoes

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Trump Vetoes

I seriously doubt that Donald Trump has vetoed 200 pieces of legislation as shown in this article.71.209.223.89 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

Does FDR hold the record?

Surely there are some other Presidential vetoes interesting enough to worth noting.

Nixon is shown as having more vetoes overridden that he actually made? This cannot possibly be right

Also, if someone wants to do the research (I'm a Brit so I don't know where to find this stuff) it would be interesting to know why the Presidents with lots of vetoes had so many - unless it is just facing a Congress controlled by the other party. Jonathan 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the other vetoes, but the chart listed 0-0-0-0 vetoes for Theodore Roosevelt. The listing at the US Senate reference desk site listed 42-40-82-0.

There are some problems with this list. Not only have there been changes made to the numbers without citing sources, the totals at the top of the columns no longer even reflect the numbers in those columns. I'm going to put a factual accuracy tag at the top of the page. NoIdeaNick 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the table. NoIdeaNick 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HR 1591 (2007)

Please note that as of when I am writing this, THOMAS is still reporting that HR 1591 is cleared for the White House (it was so cleared on April 26). The veto isn't complete until the President returns the bill to the originating chamber (in this case the House) with his objections noted (see Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2). He gets ten days exempting Sundays to decide, (I assume the day it is cleared counts as day 1), so Monday, May 7 is his last day to act on it. –Pakman044 11:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Just another note that as of 3:35pm EDT, there has been no official word that HR 1591 has been vetoed. The current word is that he'll do so privately and then "make a statement" at 6:10pm [1]. Please don't add this to the table until it is reported that he actually vetoes it (not that he is going to veto it). –Pakman044 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)The thing has finally been vetoed. –Pakman044 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New control template

I created a new template for computing how many votes are needed to override a veto. The use is:

If everyone is present and voting, you need {{two-thirds|50|50}} votes to override in the Senate.

If everyone is present and voting, you need 67 votes to override in the Senate. –Pakman044 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format

If the date is full (month, day, year), then it should all be linked. Wikipedia can only convert full dates.
- Yes: [[March 4]][[2006]] or [[2006-03-04]].
- No: March 4, 2006.
When possible, bill names should be linked. Sometimes this will lead to a redlink. Maybe a Redirect will solve this, but even a redlink is sometimes OK.
- Preferably the full bill's name: District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997 and then, perhaps, redirect to the partial name, District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act.
- If not the name, then link the subject. District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997.
Link to {{USBill}}. The parameters are
- {{{1}}}: ordinal Congress (1-110);
- {{{2}}}: bill type (S., H.R., etc.) but periods are optional;
- {{{3}}}: bill number (1-?)—Markles 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every bill is going to lead to a red link. Looking at H.W. and Clinton, the only two guys I've done in detail so far, they vetoed mostly appropriations bills. Maybe a better idea would be to include a brief summary, such as District of Columbia Student Scholarship Act of 1997 (school voucher bill for District of Columbia.
I'm not thrilled with the [[2007-05-03]] date format; it's hard to read in my opinion (although that could be because I'm not used to it. I'd rather go with [[May 3]][[2007]]; I just need to go back and change all of those dates. A good regex string would do that the job (maybe something along the lines of matching to /([[){0,1}(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) (\d\d{0,1})(]]){0,1}, ([[){0,1}(\d\d\d\d)(]]){0,1}/ ). And with the years, well they should all be wikilinked, but I was lazy with H.W. when I was adding his vetoes.
How should pocket vetoes be handled? For H.W.'s and Clinton's, I footnoted the resolution adjourning Congress sine die, the times they actually adjourned, and when the pocketed bills were received by the President. I'm not really sure this information is useful, so maybe it should be tossed.
Should we include links to the veto message from the Congressional Record? It does a good job of explaining what the President is pissed off about, and it isn't trivial to find them in the Congressional Record if you don't know what you're doing. At the same time, there's an art to knowing how to link them; the Congressional Record link template starts to fail circa 1992, and you have to be careful not to grab a temporary URL from the THOMAS page. Maybe massive export of veto messages to Wikisource for easy linking ;-)?
I wish there was a way to auto-number the bullets. Unfortunately, the MediaWiki ordered list doesn't transfer across sections, and I'm loathe to use a <ol> tag.
The fun part will be when we start adding the vetoes from more previous Presidents. Not only are they harder to find (THOMAS doesn't go back forever, so it'll be hours at a Federal Depository Library or using the Senate PDF's), they will bloat this page. There are on the order of 2500 vetoes or so all time. This page is already up to ~35KB, and that's only on H.W., Clinton, and W. Just wait until FDR arrives (all ~635 or so vetoes!). Eventually, some of these lists will have to shipped off to their own articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pakman044 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A few of the Presidents vetoed so many bills that they would need their own article just on the ones that President vetoed if all were listed. Most notably, FDR. Jon 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data needs correcting

The totals listed (as of today) are very different from the numbers cited in http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes17891988.pdf. —Markles 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S. 214 (2007)

I am removing the pocket veto on S. 214. The THOMAS listing for the bill simply says that it was "cleared for the White House" on May 22. That doesn't necessarily mean that it was presented to the President that day, so we don't know when the 10 day excluding Sundays clock begins. Further, even if it was the day it was presented to him, vetoes during recesses of Congress generally are not pocket vetoes, but rather would be a bill enacted without the President's signature. So I'd recommend we sit on this one until further development occurs on THOMAS. –Pakman044 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on waiting. According to the Congressional Research Service there is some question about the legality of intrasession pocket vetos, i.e., those that occur in the middle of a congressional session or those between the first and second sessions. The key is an adjournment that "prevents return" of a bill, such as a sine die adjournment. Congress is still in session, even though in recess, so there's nothing preventing a veto return. Regardless of that question, the 10-day clock begins when the bill is presented to the President. Congress is not required to send a bill to the President immediately after passage. There have been several bills passed by Congress prior to a holiday adjournment in which delivery is postponed.Dcmacnut 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree on waiting. Remembering WP's rule against original research (see WP:NOT#OR), it's not up to us to decide if/when it is pocket vetoed. Let's wait for an authoratative source.—Markles 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to start the 10 day clock. THOMAS now reports that it was presented to the President on Monday, June 4 (none of this "cleared for White House" garbage), so Bush will get until Thursday or Friday next week (I always forget whether ten days counts the day that the President gets the bill or starting the next day). Seeing that I haven't heard anything noisy from him on this bill, I'm wondering if he might let it slip by without his signature or otherwise attach a signing statement to it? –Pakman044 05:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but let me remind everyone again: it's not for us to decide that this has been or has not been pocket vetoed. Even after the 10-day clock, we need a reliable independent source. See WP:NOT#OR.—Markles 21:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Congress is back in session until the first week of July, there's no way the bill can be pocket vetoed now. If the President does not want the bill to become law, he has to veto it outright. If he does not veto or sign it in 10-days, it becomes law. Healthy speculation is, well, healthy, on the talk page, but let's wait for confirmation.Dcmacnut 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. –Pakman044 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The President has signed the bill. See S. 214. –Pakman044 04:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S. 5 (2007) - Preemptive reminder

S. 5 (2007), the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 cleared the House by a vote of 247-176 (House Roll Call Vote # 443); it had earlier cleared the Senate 63-34. As this article mentions though, this bill is almost certain to be vetoed (probably sometime next week I would think). But let's not add it to the list (and revert back attempts) until there are accounts that Bush has vetoed it (not will veto it) or THOMAS reports the veto. Who knows; if S. 214 is veto-bound too, S. 5 could get vetoed first. –Pakman044 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI update, S. 5 was presented to the President today (June 12). Same idea as mentioned earlier (wait until actual veto reports, not speculation, or "will veto"), although my guess is that this one isn't going to take very long. –Pakman044 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vetoed (see S. 5). It'll be interesting to see if it gets overriden in the Senate, since Senator Thomas recently died (he voted against the bill), the number voting drops to 99, and the three absent Senators have indicated they would vote for the bill, giving them the necessary 66 in the Senate (I wish I could find the news article that I saw this scenario in the first time). Of course, that's pretty immaterial as the override attempt is dead on arrival in the House, given the margin there. –Pakman044 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent veto (10/3)

It appears that Bush's most recent veto is of H.R. 976, since that bill was presented to the President on October 2. It is difficult to say since I haven't a news story yet report the actual bill number. –Pakman044 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we don't have to repeatedly look this up....

President	Regular vetoes	Pocket vetoes	Total vetoes	Vetoes overridden
Presidential Vetoes, previous presidents	1484	1066	2550	106
George W. Bush	6	0	6	1

I take it that most anyone here can do simple math operations such as 1484+5 and so forth. –Pakman044 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percent vetoes overriden ...

Bryan H Bell added the percent vetoes overridden column last week, and I was lukewarm to it, but haven't really thought much of it (or not much more than, "that's going to be a pain to maintain"). But I'm thinking two things now:

Does this add value to the article?
Should the denominator be total number of vetoes or total number of regular vetoes (since a pocket veto cannot be overridden)?

–Pakman044 06:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure readers would find 'percent vetoes overriden' useful, but decided to give it a shot and see what the reaction would be. After one of George W. Bush's vetoes was overridden recently, I visited this article for the first time. Of course the whole purpose of this chart is to easily compare the activities of the Presidential administrations and their corresponding Congresses to each other. In doing so, I noticed that comparing mere totals was misleading. For example, comparing overrides gives the impression that Harry Truman (tied for 2nd place in most vetoes overridden) was one of the weakest administrations in the face of Congressional opposition. But of course Truman was also one of the most active Presidents in issuing vetoes (3rd place in both most regular vetoes and most total vetoes). I looked for a way to equalize Presidential activism against Congressional opposition so I could get a better idea of how the balance of power compared between administrations (at least in terms of vetoes and overrides). Percentage of vetoes overridden gave me an approximation of this. Looking at it, you can see that the balance of power during Truman's administration was actually closer to average compared to other administrations. I found this information valuable and so decided to add it to the article to see if others would also find it valuable.

When calculating the percentage of vetoes overridden, I wrestled a bit over whether the denominator should be total vetoes or regular (overridable) vetoes. I thought about including columns for both calculations, but felt it might result in too much clutter on the chart (I was already unsure if adding one column would introduce too much clutter). In the end, I decided that using total vetoes would give a better indication of Congress' opposition power in the face of the totality of the President's veto power, even that part of the Presiden't power that Congress is (currently) helpless to address. I felt that using only regular vetoes would make Congress seem more powerful than it is in terms of its effect on the final outcome of passing laws.

–Bryan H Bell 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to address Pakman044's maintenance concern. Is there a way to add a template or something that will calculate the data in the 'percent vetoes overridden' column? That could eliminate the maintenance of the column.

–Bryan H Bell 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could in theory write a template to do that (for example, there's a template that calculates what the two-thirds would be necessary on a veto override vote), but it would be expensive computationally because it would be called roughly 45 times. But it would probably be a little too much "power" than you'd really need. We get enough people vandalizing the table here and there that any more complexity would be a bad idea.

Part of the problem with the percentage is that the number of bills passed has changed over time, while the difficulty of overriding such bills is still relatively constant (pretty hard), so a more irritated Congress could be masked by more bill traffic in general. For example, Congress overrode 12 vetoes for both Truman and Ford, but out of 250 vetoes for the former and 66 for the latter. They're both still second to poor Mr. Johnson (who of course had his own problem with almost 2/3 of the Senate), but the raw number still tells you that they both had a rough time with Congress, which stands to reason, since Truman became unpopular near the end of his term (among irritating a bunch of steel mills by trying to taking them over) and Ford was succeeding a President who'd resigned, which isn't exactly a prospect for success.

But I suppose we can give it a try and as long as things don't get out of hand with the maintenance, it's a worthwhile addition. There will probably be bigger problems for the page (such as when all the vetoes for some of the Presidents who vetoed more than 100 bills get added). –Pakman044 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HR 4986

HR 4986 is listed here as pocket vetoed, but signed into law on its own page. Someone needs to clarify this.199.76.156.60 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing "HR 4986" anywhere in the text of the main article nor am I seeing any articles with that title. Jon (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Vetoes

Can someone explain or clarify why both "H.J.RES.64" and "H.R. 3808" situation are considered pocket vetoes? My understanding is that, under the Constitution, the President can do 1 of 3 things when a bill comes to his desk:

(1) Sign the bill: The bill becomes law.

(2) Not sign the bill, and return it "to that House in which it shall have originated" (along "with his Objections", or a "Memorandum of Disapproval"): This is called a Veto, and Congress can try to override it, or not take up the business at all.

(3) Not sign the bill, and not do anything at all: If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is still in session, it becomes law. If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is NOT in session, it is voided (in this case, it is called a pocket veto).

It can only be a pocket veto if the President does not do anything at all. By sending it back to the House, it is just a plain-old veto, not a pocket veto.

No where did the Constitution say that Congress cannot take up overriding procedure AFTER it reconvenes, that there's a time limit as to when it should be taken up. Therefore, both the "H.J.RES.64" veto, as well as "H.R. 3808" situation, are both plain old veto because the President sent the bill back along with a written objection.Finestela (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This New York Times story highlights another possible veto. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Vetoes

Could someone please round out the vetoes of President Reagan? For instance, on September 26, 1986, President Reagan vetoed the act providing economic sanctions against the Government of South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.131 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Pocket Veto

Clinton also pocket vetoed Jerusalem Embassy Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.1.93 (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope SCAH (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States presidential vetoes. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did not Pres Trump veto the continuing resolution which led to govt shutdown?

Article says, "Trump has yet to veto any legislation presented to him by Congress." But didn't Pres Trump veto the continuing resolution which led to the govt shutdown? (PeacePeace (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, It never got to his desk SCAH (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Note "the president of the United States" is uncapitalized because "president of the United States" is preceded by modifier "the", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's 6th Veto

The article states "Override attempt failed in Senate, 53–36 (66 needed)". Where does the figure of 66 come from? Overrides require a 2/3 majority of those voting, which in this case is 89, so only 60 votes would be required. Perhaps the author mistakenly added 53 and 36 to get 99, and took 2/3 of that total? Obliqueref (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President Biden

"President Biden has not yet vetoed any bills passed by Congress." - IMO we should include a date e.g. 1 January 2022 because otherwise when he vetoes anything, this information will become automatically false. Grillofrances (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a month/year date for this information. —ADavidB 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]