Editing Veto (section)

== History ==

=== Roman veto ===
[[File:Tiberius Gracchus.jpg|thumb|Tiberius Gracchus, Roman tribune]]
The institution of the veto, known to the Romans as the ''intercessio'', was adopted by the [[Roman Republic]] in the 6th century BC to enable the tribunes to protect the [[mandamus]] interests of the [[plebeians]] (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the [[Patrician (ancient Rome)|patricians]], who dominated the Senate. A tribune's veto did not prevent the senate from passing a bill but meant that it was denied the force of law. The tribunes could also use the veto to prevent a bill from being brought before the plebeian assembly. The consuls also had the power of veto, as decision-making generally required the assent of both consuls. If they disagreed, either could invoke the ''intercessio'' to block the action of the other. The veto was an essential component of the Roman conception of power being wielded not only to manage state affairs but to moderate and restrict the power of the state's high officials and institutions.<ref name="Spitzer" />

A notable use of the Roman veto occurred in the [[Gracchi brothers|Gracchan land reform]], which was initially spearheaded by the tribune [[Tiberius Gracchus]] in 133 BC. When Gracchus' fellow tribune [[Marcus Octavius]] vetoed the reform, the Assembly voted to remove him on the theory that a tribune must represent the interests of the plebeians. Later, senators outraged by the reform murdered Gracchus and several supporters, setting off a period of internal political violence in Rome.<ref>{{Cite book
  | isbn = 9781316061923
  | title = Law and Power in the Making of the Roman Commonwealth
  | author-first = Luigi 
  | author-last = Capogrossi Colognesi
  | publisher = Cambridge University Press
  | year = 2014
  | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=kMkZBQAAQBAJ
  | chapter = Tiberius Gracchus and the distribution of the ''ager publicus''
}}</ref>

=== Liberum veto ===
{{main|Liberum veto}}

In the constitution of the [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]] in the 17th and 18th centuries, all bills had to pass the ''Sejm'' or "Seimas" (parliament) by [[unanimous]] consent, and if any legislator invoked the ''[[liberum veto]]'', this not only vetoed that bill but also all previous legislation passed during the session, and dissolved the legislative session itself. The concept originated in the idea of "Polish democracy" as any Pole of noble extraction was considered as good as any other, no matter how low or high his material condition might be. The more and more frequent use of this veto power paralyzed the power of the legislature and, combined with a string of weak figurehead kings, led ultimately to the [[Partitions of Poland|partitioning and the dissolution of the Polish state]] in the late 18th century.

=== Emergence of modern vetoes ===
[[File:P588 William III. giving his royal assent to the toleration act.jpg|thumb|[[William III of England]] granting royal assent to the [[Toleration Act 1688]].]]

The modern executive veto derives from the European institution of [[royal assent]], in which the monarch's consent was required for bills to become law. This in turn had evolved from earlier royal systems in which laws were simply issued by the monarch, as was the case for example in England until the reign of [[Edward III of England|Edward III]] in the 14th century.{{sfn|Watson|1987|p=403}} In England itself, the power of the monarch to deny royal assent was not used after 1708, but it was used extensively in the British colonies. The heavy use of this power was mentioned in the [[U.S. Declaration of Independence]] in 1776.{{sfn|Watson|1987|p=404}}

Following the [[French Revolution]] in 1789, the royal veto was hotly debated, and hundreds of proposals were put forward for different versions of the royal veto, as either absolute, suspensive, or nonexistent.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | journal = Journal of the Western Society for French History
  | title = What was "Absolute" about the "Absolute veto"? Ideas of National Sovereignty and Royal Power in September 1789
  | author-first = Robert 
  | author-last = Blackman
  | volume = 32
  | year = 2004
  | hdl = 2027/spo.0642292.0032.008
 | url = http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0642292.0032.008
}}</ref> With the adoption of the [[French Constitution of 1791]], King [[Louis XVI]] lost his absolute veto and acquired the power to issue a suspensive veto that could be overridden by a majority vote in two successive sessions of the Legislative Assembly, which would take four to six years.<ref name="longman-2014">{{Cite book
  | title = The Longman Companion to the French Revolution
  | author-first = Colin 
  | author-last = Jones
  | publisher = Routledge
  | year = 2014
  | page = 67
  | isbn = 9781317870807 
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=xcXKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67
}}</ref> With the abolition of the monarchy in 1792, the question of the French royal veto became moot.<ref name="longman-2014"/>

The presidential veto was conceived in by [[classical republicanism|republicans]] in the 18th and 19th centuries as a counter-majoritarian tool, limiting the power of a legislative majority.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|pp=12-13}} Some republican thinkers such as [[Thomas Jefferson]], however, argued for eliminating the veto power entirely as a relic of monarchy.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=13}} To avoid giving the president too much power, most early presidential vetoes, such as the [[veto power in the United States]], were qualified vetoes that the legislature could override.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=13}} But this was not always the case: the Chilean constitution of 1833, for example, gave that country's president an absolute veto.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=13}}