An analysis of presidential vetoes from FDR to Jimmy Carter which clarifies the problems caused by the veto and reveals how it has shaped public policy, Watson concludes that the veto power has operated well both in terms of public policy and relations between Congress and the president and argues that it would be a mistake to alter it through the adoption of an item veto.

This book examines the use of presidential powers in Central and East Europe between 1990 and 2010. Focussing on presidential vetoes and the formation of governments, it maps patterns of presidential activism and its determinants across nine democracies. Thereby, it combines the analysis of original quantitative data on the use of presidential powers with in-depth case studies in an innovative mixed-methods framework. Based on regression analyses and unique insights from numerous elite interviews, the study shows strong support for the hitherto insufficiently tested assumption that popularly elected presidents are more active than their indirectly elected counterparts. As one of the first comprehensive comparative studies of presidential activism and veto power in Europe, this book will be a key resource not only for area specialists but also for scholars of presidential studies, comparative government, and executives.

This is the first modern study of the veto. In addition to tracing the genesis and historical evolution from Ancient Rome, through the ultimate inclusion in the Constitution, it also explores the veto's consequences for modern presidents. In doing so, Spitzer promotes a key argument about the relation between the veto power and the Presidency -- namely, that the rise of the veto power, beginning with the first Chief Executive, is symptomatic of the rise of the strong modern Presidency, and has in fact been a major tool of Presidency-building. A special and revealing irony of the veto power is seen in the finding that, despite its monarchical roots and anti-majoritarian nature, the veto has become a key vehicle for presidents to appeal directly to, and on behalf of, the people. Thus, the veto's utility for presidents arises not only as a power to use against Congress, but also as a symbolic, plebiscitary tool.