Woods Workbench

From Madison's Notes at the Constitution Convention debates (June 4, 1787), the following comment by Frankin is about Presidential vote power:

DOCr. FRANKLIN, said he was sorry to differ from his colleague for whom he had a very great respect, on any occasion, but he could not help it on this. He had had some experience of this check in the Executive on the Legislature, under the proprietary Government of Pena. The negative of the Governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of his salary, or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last it became the regular practice, to have orders in his favor on the Treasury, presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the Governor in the means of self-defence could not be got, till it was agreed that his Estate should be exempted from taxation: so that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to bear no share of the burden. This was a mischievous sort of check. If the Executive was to have a Council, such a power would be less objectionable. It was true the King of G. B. had not, as was said, exerted his negative since the Revolution; but that matter was easily explained. The bribes and emoluments now given to the members of parliament rendered it unnecessary, every thing being done according to the will of the Ministers. He was afraid, if a negative should be given as proposed, that more power and money would be demanded, till at last eno' would be gotten 10 to influence & bribe the Legislature into a compleat subjection to the will of the Executive.

Interesting....it does not really relate to Bush's veto history or lack thereof; however, what about in divided government such as Clinton and the Republican Congress?  Not so much in term of personal enrichment, but the featherbedding of programs for supporters.

Update 6/5/2005:  In the context of of Bush's veto threat against expanded federal support for stem cell research, is this a non-monetary demand for compensation, a validation of religious irrationality?  Does the continuation of human suffering from disease give support to religion (it's ideology, it's funding, it's recruiting)? 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this