Vetoes in the Early Republic: A Defense of Norms

Abstract

The first six presidents (1789–1829) vetoed bills far less frequently than their successors. Previous literature affords two competing explanations for this phenomenon. The constitutional norms approach contends that the early presidents used the veto only to reject unconstitutional legislation. The veto bargaining approach argues that the early presidents vetoed fewer bills because the electoral conditions under which vetoes typically occur had yet to emerge. This article accepts some of the insights of the veto bargaining approach, but defends a corrected version of the norms account. This account says the early presidents vetoed fewer bills because they were constrained by a norm according to which “adversarial” vetoes were considered illegitimate. The emergence of the modern veto required discursive legitimation of vetoes for adversarial purposes.