Presidential Support and Veto Overrides, 1889 to 1988

Authors

  • Samuel B. Hoff

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1992.13.0.173-189

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of congressional responses to presidential vetoes have attempted to identify elements which explain whether an override takes place. However, they have failed to distinguish between initial and final reconsideration, and have included private bill vetoes in the analysis. This research employs a presidential support model to examine factors influencing probability of override at both the first and second house juncture, as well as strength of successful final override vote, over the last century. The results substantiate the value of the model for determining legislative reactions to public bill vetoes.

References

Aldrich, John H. and Forrest D. Nelson. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Bass, David J. 1972. The Veto Power of the President: Its Theory and Practice. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1982. A Historical Reassessment of Wildavsky's 'Two Presidencies' Thesis. Social Science Quarterly 63: 549-555.

Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1988. 1989. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Copeland, Gary W. 1983. When Congress and the President Collide: Why Presidents Veto Legislation. Journal of Politics 45: 696-710.

DiClerico, Robert A. 1983. The American President. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Edwards, George C. 1983. The Public Presidency: The Pursuit of Popular Support. New York: St. Martin's.

Finer, Herman. 1960. The Presidency: Crisis and Regeneration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fleisher, Richard and Jon R. Bond. 1988. Are There Two Presidencies? Yes, But Only for Republicans. Journal of Politics 50: 747-767.

Funderburk, Charles. 1982. Presidents and Politics: The Limits ofPower. Monterey, C A: Brooks/Cole.

Harvard Law Review. 1966. Private Bills in Congress. Harvard Law Review 79: 1684- 1706.

Higgins, John L.B. 1952. Presidential Vetoes, 1889-1929. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Hoff, Samuel B. 1985. Factors Which Influence Congress's Decision to Override a Presidential Veto: A Study of the Veto Process. Paper presented at the 1985 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.

________ 1987. Presidential Support in the Veto Process, 1889-1985. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York At Stony Brook.

________ 1991. Saying No: Presidential Support and Veto Use, 1889-1989. American Politics Quarterly 19: 310-323.

Jackson, Carlton. 1967. Presidential Vetoes, 1789-1945. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

King, Gary. 1989. Variance Specification in Event Count Models: From Restrictive Assumptions to a Generalized Estimator. American Journal of Political Science 33: 762-784.

Lee, Jong R. 1975. Presidential Vetoes from Washington to Nixon. Journal of Politics 37: 522-546.

LeLoup, Lance and Steven Shull. 1979. Congress Versus the Executive: The 'Two Presidencies' Reconsidered. Social Science Quarterly 59:704-719.

Levine, Myron A. 1983. Tactical Constraints and Presidential Influence on Veto Overrides. Presidential Studies Quarterly 13: 646-650.

Light, Paul C. 1983. The President's Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Carter, With Notes on Reagan. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mason, Edward C. 1890. I he Veto Power, 1789-1889. New York: Russell and Russell.

Metz, JohnC. 1971. The President's Veto Power, 1889-1968: An Instrument of Executive Leadership. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Nelson, Michael, ed. 1989. Guide to the Presidency. Washington: Congressional Quarterly

Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Presidential Vetoes, 1789-1976.1978. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Presidential Vetoes. 1977-1984. 1985. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Richardson, James D. 1900. Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Literature and Art.

Ripley, Randall B. 1978. Congress: Process and Policy. New York: W.W. Norton.

Rohde, David W. and Dennis M. Simon. 1985. Presidential Vetoes and Congressional Response: A Case Study of Institutional Conflict. American Journal of Political Science 29: 393-427.

Sullivan, Terry. 1991. A Matter of Fact: The 'Two Presidencies' Thesis Revitalized. In Steven A. Shull, ed., The Two Presidencies: A Quarter Century Assessment. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, Frederick E. 1971. An Analysis of Factors Purported to Influence the Use of, and Congressional Responses to the Use of, the Presidential Veto. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Towle, Katherine A. 1937. The President's Veto Since 1889. American Political Science Review 31: 51-56.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1966. The Two Presidencies. Transaction 4: 101-110.

Zeidenstein, Harvey. 1981. The Two Presidencies Thesis is Alive and Well and Has Been Living in the U.S. Senate Since 1973. Presidential Studies Quarterly 11:511- 525.

Downloads

Published

1992-07-01

Issue

Vol. 13: Summer 1992

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.