Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:05:13.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Veto Power of the State Governor1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John A. Fairlie
John A. Fairlie*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term “veto” has been traced from the power of the tribune of the plebs in ancient Rome to annul or suspend the acts of other public authorities. From the establishment of the Roman tribune, that official had the right of intercession (intercessio), to cancel any command of a consul which infringed the liberties of a citizen; and this was gradually extended to other administrative acts and even to decrees of the senate. The word veto (I forbid) was at least occasionally used by the tribune in such cases.

But historically what is called the veto power of American executives is derived from the legislative power of the British Crown. Until the fifteenth century statutes in England were enacted by the king on his own initiative or in response to petitions. From that time parliament presented bills in place of petitions; and statutes were enacted by the king “by and with the advice and consent of the lords …. and the commons …. and by the authority of the same.” The king's assent was still necessary; and without this assent a bill was not law. For two hundred years the Crown continued to exercise the negative power of declining to accept bills, not by any formal act of disapproval, but by the polite response in old Norman French, “le roy s'avisera.” Since the beginning of the eighteenth century no bill which has passed parliament has failed to receive the royal assent; but the old form of enacting laws is still in use.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , August 1917 , pp. 473 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

A paper read at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, at Cincinnati, December, 1916.

References

2 How and Leigh: History of Rome, pp. 54, 72.Google Scholar

3 Greene, E. B.: The Provincial Governor, pp. 6, 13–14, 162–165.Google Scholar In Pennsylvania (a proprietary colony) the power of the king in council to disapprove acts of the colonial assembly was also reserved.

4 The President, elected by the general asssembly, was recognized as part of the legislative authority with power to approve or to reject bills.

5 The Maryland constitution of 1851 provided that all bills passed by the legislature should be presented to the governor, “who shall sign the same.”

6 Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Maine, South Carolina and Mississippi.

7 New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Kansas.

8 American Law Review, vol. 41, p. 231; Lankford v. Somerset Co., 73 Md. 105, 115; Gray v. McLendon, 134, Ga. 244.

9 Minnesota, 3 days; Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon and West Virginia, each 5 days; New Mexico, 6 days.

10 Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

11 Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming, 15 days; Arkansas and Texas, 20 days; New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, California and Delaware, 30 days.

12 New York, Delaware, Virginia, Alabama, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.

13 May v. Topping, 65 W. Va. 656, 64 S. E. 848; Woodall v. Darst, 70 W. Va. 350, 77 S. E. 264; 44 L. R. A., n. s. 83 (1913).

14 New Jersey, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Arkansas.

15 Delaware, Maryland, Ohio and Nebraska.

16 Vermont, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Texas, two-thirds of the members present; New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California, two-thirds of the total membership.

17 Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

18 Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Wyoming; in Arkansas and Tennessee to resolutions and orders, but not to other votes.

19 See Commonwealth v. Griest 196 Pa. 396 (1900); Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md. 78, 120. In Mississippi the veto power is granted only for bills, and the constitution also provides that: “Orders, votes and resolutions of both houses affecting the prerogatives and duties thereof, or relating to adjournment or amendments to the Constitution, to the investigation of public officers, and the like, shall not require the signature of the Governor; and such resolutions, orders and votes may empower legislative committees to administer oaths, to send for persons and papers and generally make legislative investigations effective.”

20 All but the six New England states, four central states (Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Iowa), Nevada and, of course, North Carolina. See Equity, January, 1917.

21 Fairlie, J. A.: “The State Governor,” Michigan Law Review, March, 1912.Google Scholar

22 People v. Hatch, 19 Ill. 283 (1857); People v. McCullough, 210 Ill. 418 (1904). Cf. also Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Marylind and Vermont.

23 American Law Review, 41: 388–89.

24 Fairlie, J. A.: “The State Governor,” Michigan Law Review, March, 1912.Google Scholar

25 Debel, N. H.: The Veto Power of the Governor of Illinois, (University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol. VI, nos. 1 and 2.)Google Scholar

26 Commonwealth v. Barnett, 48 Atl. 976, April 22, 1901; Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Science, vol. 20, p. 69 (September, 1902).

27 Reinsch, P. S.: “American State Legislatures,” Proceedings of the Governors' Conference, 1911, 1913.Google Scholar

28 Holcombe, A. N.: State Government in the United States, p. 327.Google Scholar

29 Proceedings of the Governors' Conference, 1911, 1912; Mathews, J. M.: Principles of American State Administration, ch. 3.Google Scholar

30 Proceedings of the Governors' Conference, 1911, p. 62. But cf. Luykens v. Nye, 156 Cal. 498 (1909), where it was held that such an agreement was not an enforceable contract.

31 Regents of the University of Oklahoma v. Pratt, 28 Okla. 83 (1911); Fergus v. Russell, 270 111. 304 (1915).

32 Annual Message to the Legislature, 1916.

33 Debates and Proceedings, pp. 570–571, 1201.

34 Swisher, J. A., “The Executive Veto in Iowa,” Iowa Journal of History and Politics, XV, 155 (1917).Google Scholar

35 Porter v. Hughes, 4 Ariz. 1 (1893); State v. Holder, 76, Miss. 158 (1898); cf. dictum in Mooz v. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597 (1884); 55 Lawyers' Reports annotated, 882.

36 Personal correspondence.

37 Journal of the Convention.

38 Federalist, No. 73.

39 Richardson's, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV, 646.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., V, 23.

41 Ibid., VII, 268–271.

42 Beard, C. A.: American Government and Politics, p. 203.Google Scholar

43 Our Chief Magistrate, p. 16.

44 12 Ruling Case Law, vol. 39, p. 1006.

45 General References:

Wyinan, A. C. and Sherwood, Grace Mabel: The Veto Power in the Several Stales. Rhode Island State Library, Legislative Reference Bureau (1907).Google Scholar

Michigan State Library Legislative Reference Department: Local, special and private legislation … gubernatorial veto …. as provided for and regulated by the constitutions of the several states (1907).

Newman, J. H: Digest of State Constitutions (1912), pp. 102–104.Google Scholar

Index Digest of Slate Constitutions, New York State Constitutional Convention Commission (1915), pp. 36–37, 846–854, 858–859.

Mason, E. C: The Veto Power; its origin, development and function in the government of the United States (1890).Google Scholar

Annals American Academy of Social and Political Science, vol. 20: 373 (September, 1902). “Veto Power in Pennsylvania.”

Barnett, J. D: “Executive Power,” American Law Review, vol. 41, pp. 230–236.Google Scholar

Debel, N. H: The Veto Power of the Governor of Illinois. (University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol. VI, nos. 1 and 2).Google Scholar

Fairlie, John A. “The State Governor,” Michigan Law Review, March-April, 1912.Google Scholar

Finley, and Sanderson, : The American Executive, ch. 6.Google Scholar

Independent, vol. 73, pp. 55–6 (1912).

Journal Illinois State Historical Society, IX, 245 (1916).

Iowa Journal of History and Politics, XV, 156 (1917).

Mississippi Valley Historical Association, Proceedings: IX, 177 (1917).

Nation, vol. 86, p. 257: vol. 95, pp. 117, 160.

Vetoes by the Governor of Bills and Resolutions passed by the Legislature, Harrisburg, Pa.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.