Has any other president besides Bush ever gone through a presidency without ever using a veto?
437153
There's actually 7 previous, garfield is the last, but garfield was shot while in office and did not serve a full term.  You'd have to go all the way back to fillmore for the last full term president.  Take a look at the president's vetos broken down at the link below
919709
In my opinion...and that is pretty much all these are anyways\n\nWorst President in the History of America is George W. Bush, worse than Nixon....but it is close\n\nBest President in my lifetime is Bill Clinton\n\nBest President of all time is tough i would say Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Lincoln, JFK, Jefferson, Washington, there are many more that were very good but it is hard to say who was the best all time.
1136318
NOT Reagan or Bush jr! \n\nModern: Clinton and Carter.\n\nRecent: Truman and FDR.\n\nOlder: Lincoln and Washington
735391
Bush, as we have seen, is loathe to use his veto power.  It will be interesting to see if this changes.
627812
Ever is a big word.  Hayes was known as a bad president.  Garfield, too, I think.  My mother recalls Hoover with venom.  Nixon was tried for impeachment and branded a crook, but he had a few triumphs that washed him in the history books.  I cannot say Bush is the worst president ever, but I will say he is absolutely, the worst to surface in my 42 years of life.
297202
None...that's absurd to say he has. To my knowledge President Bush has never personally killed anyone.\n\nRemember, Congress has to approve everything he does (at least majority vote). So why just point the finger at Bush? Seriously, it's getting aggravating. All the questions on here always have the same theme.
782268
First of all, Hillary will never happen.... she isnt taken seriously enough, and besides, no one wants another Clinton in office, she put in her 2 cents while hubby was busy with Monica....\n\nAnyways, President Bush is still the President & has the power to Veto if he so chooses, and believe me he will, with use of discretion of course, he wont be pushed around..
954814
a - it takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of congress to override a Presidential veto.\n\npardons are given by a president through his executive powers, a mandate is more or less an "ok" to continue or go forward with something, and a line-item veto is a tool allowed for governors in some states (the President does not have that power) where they can sign the legislation but take out a section they don't want (that could be overridden).
48155
Ok, How about this... How many presidents came before George W. Bush?
778187
Bush will discover the word veto . No one told him about it yet and when they do he will use it a lot .
960134
No.  U.S. president members of the CFR have included Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.
885941
The PRESIDENT is George Bush until 2008
1108699
No, because it's blatantly unconstitutional and ultimately circumvents the whole point between having a separated executive and legislative branch.\n\nLine Item Veto power gives the President the power to effectively change the intent of any law Congress passes to suit his whims by simply marking out those sections of laws he does not like... and unlike the system we have now, with a line-item veto, there are absolutely no checks and balances in place to prevent him from doing so egregiously because, once he is done re-writing the law to suit him, he can simply sign it into law and be done with it (meaning the person who writes the law is now the person who decides if his judgment is valid, rather than having an outside check on his judgment in case it isn't reasonable).\n\nThe whole point of giving the President veto power over a whole bill so he has to either approve it in the form it is presented to him, or veto it in that form and return it to Congress, is to leave the power to legislate with the legislative body where it belongs.  Considering the veto in its current form, the President must present his reasoning for overturning the will of the legislature and place the matter back into their hands for them to decide how best to appropriately address the President's objections, or even if they have any merit, and then afford the legislature an opportunity to revise the bill or force its passage without the President's consent... again, leaving the power to define laws in the hands of a diverse legislative body whose debate, by necessity, must reflect a wider spectrum of values than just the values, than that of a single man.\n\nLine item veto power sabotages this critical process and places the power to determine the final nature and intent of laws not in the hands of the legislative body which was intended to conceive and define them, but in the hands of a single man who may, at the eleventh hour, choose to simply recraft the law to his desires and then pass it without so much as consulting a single person as to whether or not what he has just done is in the best interests of the people.\n\nEven Congress was not allowed so much power as to determine the laws without having some sort of outside check to determine whether the law is fair, just, and wise (hopefully) before allowing it to become a law imposed on the people.  Why should it be allowed to the President?\n\nThese are safeguards which were put in place because we know how easily such unilateral power can be abused when placed in the hands of a single person.  Giving the President line item veto power is tantamount to removing safeguards the balance of history has proven beyond a doubt the wisdom of having in place.\n\nIf the question is whether or not I would specifically support George W. Bush (as opposed to any President) having such a power, I would not, even if it were restricted to specific types of legislation such as budgetary legislation.\n\nEven restricted to budgetary concerns, the line-item veto would leave President Bush the power to vastly redefine the intent of the legislature and reshape the country as he saw fit (for instance, it doesn't seem to have occurred to people such a budgetary power would allow him to defund court districts which are traditionally more liberal, or do away with any social programs he simply didn't like, from AIDS research grants to medical care for the disabled and help with family planning, arts endowments, programs which encouarage inner-city development or minority enrichment, etc).\n\nIt also seems to be his habit to want to accumulate more unchecked power around himself so he can unilaterally force his will on everyone else.  President Bush's actions have not been the actions of a man interested in being the elected leader of a democratic nation.  They're the actions of a man who wants to be an autocrat.\n\nConsider what he does.\n\nPresident Bush has made almost every decision he makes
860760
The President and the Congress will both have to make compromises which is what always happens when the two are of opposite parties. If Bush vetoes all of the bills, Congress will not push through any of the legislation he proposes. That is what always happens in this type of circumstance. .So no, you will not be "safe".
47360
Probably not (and no, that was not a stab at President Bush himself).  Many American's probably couldn't even name the president 30 years ago, let alone any individual act that he did -- and contrary to popular belief the world was just as harrowing back then as it was now.  So unless something truly dramatic happens (mankind reaches Mars during his term, for example), he'll just go down as just another American President.  And if you think 9/11 alone was significant enough to mark his place in history, how many of your can name the president during Pearl Harbor, an equally shocking event? (You'd be surprised how many people couldn't).
129195
Since you believe that Carter's Rescue mission was a kind of invasion, then the last president who has not invaded or attacked another country would be Gerald Ford who was president, incidentally, for only a couple of years.  \n  Before him, both Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon presided over the Vietnam War.
220864
I can think of at least one American President that got an MBA from Harvard.  Come to think of it, he is the current President.