There has been talk of lack of consensus, but we all know that this is the veto of foreign powers, the intolerable situation in our 21st century America.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We saw there was no consensus in the U.N. Security Council. It was impossible, due to the threatened veto by some.
It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals.
The list of U.S. vetoes at the Security Council to protect Israeli aggression and occupation is huge.
The news today that Bush has vowed to veto any legislation that reviews the security implications of the Dubai Port World's potential management of our ports is ludicrous and the entire Democratic Party is calling him to task for it.
Heck, nobody gets along perfectly. But what we have is respect for one another. We have a system where one guy can veto anything.
Using the right of veto would be shooting the Americans in the back.
To say that I'm going to veto something that I haven't read is just - or sign something that I haven't read - I don't think is good policy for any chief executive.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent, the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
I look for the consensus because the consensus drives the policy into new places.
To make a division of power effectual, a veto in one form or another is indispensable. The right of each to judge for itself of the extent of the power allotted to its share, and to protect itself in its exercise, is what, in reality, is meant by a division of power.