Why Can't The President of the USA Simply Recuse Themselves From Certain Legislation?

For example, in this election, let's assume Romney is personally against abortion. If any legislation comes up while he might be president, he would simply declare his personal views will not allow impartiality, and he would recuse himself from signing any legislation on this topic that reaches his desk.

This allows Congress, who supposedly represents the People, to create legislation without fear of a veto which in this case would be based solely on personal preferences. If Congress passes legislation, and sends it to the president, if the president does not sign it, within some number of days (maybe 10?) the legislation automatically becomes law.

I guess the trick for this to work is defining presidential viewpoints which are founded on what's best for the USA versus what suits the president's personal preferences. This is frequently done in a court of law. But then again does the Constitution give Congress and presidents the right to decide if a woman can choose to have an abortion? And if abortions cannot be denied by government, does the Constitution require government to fund abortions? These same types of questions can apply to medical care, welfare, food stamps, stem cell research, climate change, etc.

In the particular case of Romney, if he is pro-choice, but Congress wishes to approve legislation allowing government funded abortions, all Romney (or any president) needs to say is 'I don't personally agree with this but I won't stand in the way of a majority preference', he doesn't need to sign the legislation, and it becomes law in ten days.

This thread IS NOT about abortions and pro-choice!!!! It's just a philosophical question using abortion as an example. The question is why don't presidents just take the high ground on some legislation in order to remove their personal bias from the process?

Comments?

 

because it's the president's job to sign all bills into law, or veto them. They can't recused themselves from their job. if the president is has an issue with a bill, they can veto it. He is then taken out of the equation, since it does not need to go to the president if it passes congress a second time. He has no say in it.

 

To override a Presdential Veto takes 2/3 rd's of Congress, the side wanting to override a Presidential Veto has a hard row to hoe, not often done. Anyone remember the last override of a Presidential Veto?

 

Well they do 'recuse' themselves. First, presidents do NOT initiate legislation. Nor do they have a vote on legislation. If a bill passes both the House and Senate [the VP can only break ties] and arrives on the presidents desk. He may veto it and return it to Congress for their attempt to override his veto if they are so inclined. He may sign it, making it law. Or he can "pocket" the bill. If he pockets [ignores] the bill for 10 days, it becomes law without his agreement.

And the president is not there to be the judge of a bill, he is there to agree or disagree with that bill.

And basically the whole abortion thing is a tempest in a teapot. Only 14 to 16% of the nation thinks abortion should always be illegal, and Romney is not one of them. And that 14 to 16% includes Dems, Inds, and Repubs. All but the lunatic fringe know that there are circumstances where abortion needs to be approved.

And many of the presidential polls ask about abortion. FEW think that either b.o. or Romney would spend much time on abortion. The majority knows there are much more important issues. And both Romney and b.o. know that.

 

The simple answer is that the Constitution does not allow the President to recuse himself. You would need a Constitutional Amendment for that to happen. His job is to be part of the process of legislation whether he likes it or not. Its in his contract basically.

 

Recusing oneself from legislation and leaving it up to the people is... Probably... Superior to the filth of present American politics. This will reserve the veto for purely necessary measures.

The law SHOULD be decided by the people in a democracy.

Forcing the US President to sign or veto 300 page legislation which he NEVER €£¥#%^* reads and which no one €£¥#%^* knows what it's about is indicative of the present US condition.

Law should be crafted by legislature and debate made on the fine points. These (*)(*)(*)(*)ers should be made to work and not to fly around on vacation every day and waste tax payer money in idiotic sessions.

I mean, have you €£¥#%^* watched C-SPAN?? Nothing happens in the US Govenment. It is shockingly awful that they are doing nothing. Most of it is empty talk and ineffectual debate. The corporations have already decided mostly everything.

 

On all legislation today, once approved by Congress and sent to the president, if the president does not sign the legislation, or veto it, it automatically becomes law...

 

If a president vetoes legislation, and his veto is based on his 'personal preferences' rather than what is best for the USA, this is a time when the president should recuse themselves. And the reason is what you state that if Congress approves legislation which is supposed to mean it positively serves the citizenry, then a president should not veto based solely on their personal preferences.

I agree 100% with the balance of power between the three branches of government, but IMO the presidential power of the veto should never be used based on the president's personal preferences. They should veto legislation that violates the needs of the nation.

This thread is simply asking why our presidents won't simply recuse themselves when their personal preferences can threaten a veto over the wishes of the citizenry...

 

The president can sign legislation...veto legislation...or not sign/veto legislation. If the president chooses the latter option, the legislation automatically becomes law within a week or ten days.

I'm just saying in this thread that I would prefer presidents, when they have personal preferences which can threaten the veto on a bill, to instead recuse themselves (meaning don't sign/veto the legislation) and respect the desires of the People and Congress.

This can apply to all the religious BS that is forced into politics and our government/society, or other political party agendas, etc.

 

I was recently thinking that all legislation should require the personal signature of all representatives who vote on that legislation, stating that they have personally read and understand the legislation. No person should ever sign or approve a contract/bill without fully understanding it's detailed contents. If the bills are too long to read, then shorten the bills or allow more time for full review. The BS of voting for or against legislation which has not been fully vetted is BS!

In some of those Congressional sessions someone is providing their verbal contribution on bills and there's like 2 people in the entire room...what the hell is that about? Some show up when they feel the need to vote but avoid other proceedings.

The problem with Congress is that they are self-governing even though they are supposed to represent/report/work for the People. With our divided politics and polarization it is unlikely IMO that the People will ever scrutinize Congressional processes and demand change. Washington D.C. IMO is completely unaccountable and out of control today...

 

Correct but recusing oneself and officially denying to participate is different then simply taking no action which he is allowed to do. Recusing yourself is stating that you are biased and cannot perform your duties and this is not allowed under the Constitution. Taking no action and allowing the bill to become law is the same as signing it but without making a statement that you agree with it.

 

They are not self-governing. You have the option of throwing them out if you don't like they way they participate in Congress. Its really not that hard to put pressure on a Congressman if you can get a good group organized. Tea Party does it quite often.

 

In fact they can. They can refuse to sign a piece of legislation and after a certain number of days it becomes law with or without their signature.

 

The presidents actions will almost always be based on his personal preferences. He/she was elected president, but remains the same human being as before being elected. It is only the exceedingly rare individual that rises to such a high office and then suddenly puts the nation before SELF.

We have an excellent example of that today. obama follows his life long ideology, completely ignoring the needs of the nation, in favor of his rigid ideology.

 

I didn't say the president should not participate. The president should be meeting with Congress all the time in order to craft the best legislation for the USA.

I simply propose that on those issues like abortion, which might carry political and religious polarization, that if Congress crafted a bill which is beneficial to the USA, but one the president does not agree based solely on their personal preferences, then the president should recuse themselves from signing the legislation but allow the legislation to become law. We should not take away people's personal opinions/beliefs, including the POTUS, but the POTUS should also not veto legislation for this same reason...

 

Sure the option exists but since most incumbents are re-elected, no matter how horrible things become, the option becomes kind of moot.

Has your Tea Party solved the ME wars, the debt and deficit spending, the unemployment, the slow economy, the crumbling infrastructure, the pathetic public education system, Medicare, Social Security, etc. etc. etc.?? Actually, your Tea Party has achieved nothing...

 

Because there is no constitutional or moral imperative to so so, obviously. You might as well ask the same of members of Congress - which of course would be asinine, since their "personal biases" are in great part reflective of those of their constituents.

 

Exactly!

Using abortion again as an example, if Romney is anti-abortion, but Congress passes along a pro-abortion bill, then Romney should be able to say that he and his party politics don't agree but they will not stand in the way of the will of the American people and Congress and the non-signed bill will become law in a few days.

I also believe no presidential vetoes should be allowed which are done solely on personal preference and party politics. IF a president cannot convince Congress to change legislation, then the president must accept that legislation since Congress supposedly represents the will of the People...

 

And because of this scenario, we see-saw back and forth from term to term, from political party to political party, from ideology to ideology, most of the time ignoring the needs of the USA.

And I know this won't change because this behavior simply mirrors the citizenry; heavily biased and polarized and divided...

 

My issue is that we elect presidents and other politicians based 95% along political party lines. Presidents and representatives therefore are beholden to political parties/ideologies instead of the entire US citizenry and what's best for the USA. We don't have any independent and open-minded thinking; just political polarization. And I can accept this outside of Congress and legislation, but when we're talking about creating legislation to manage the nation, I am sick and tired of the political and ideology BS, especially if this is supported by the veto...

 

The difference is that Congress is 585 members while the president is 1.

I do not like the idea of 1 person denying 585 people solely based on personal preferences...

 

If Romney sells himself to the electorate as anti-abortion, he would be obstructing their will by his "recusal".

Since the Constitution imposes no such proscription, just how would you propose to disallow it?

And where exactly do you get the idea that Congress is any more representative of their will than is the President?

Bearing in mind that members of Congress are elected by district or state whereas the President is elected at large, why is that difference of any moment?

 

If a president took the high road, and recused themselves on personal issues, then the electorate would never expect a president to act on their personal/party preferences.

Of course the electorate is too stupid to go along with this high-road scenario because most of them live in closed-minded black and white political and religious worlds!

Congress is 585 people or whatever number of them, some representing states and others representing people, and it is their 'combined' effort which creates legislation. The president is 1 person who can trump all efforts by Congress unless Congress can override the veto.

In other words, take all of the personal preference BS out of government, out of elections, and start electing our representatives based on the most effective management of the nation...