It has been suggested that Veto override be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2010.

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (October 2011)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

A veto, Latin for "I forbid", is the power of an officer of the state to unilaterally stop an official action, especially enactment of a piece of legislation.

In practice, the veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the United States of America) can block any resolution. Or, it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation.^[1]

A veto only gives power to stop changes, not to adopt them. The veto therefore conveys to its holder an ability to protect the status quo.

The concept of a veto body originated with the Roman consuls and tribunes. Either of the two consuls holding office in a given year could block a military or civil decision by the other; any tribune had the power to unilaterally block legislation passed by the Roman Senate.^[2]

Roman veto[link]

The institution of the veto, known as the intercessio, was adopted by the Roman Republic in the 6th century BC as a way of enabling the tribunes to protect the interests of the plebs (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the 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 decisionmaking generally required the assent of both consuls. If one 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 institution.^[2]

Westminster systems[link]

In Westminster Systems and most constitutional monarchies, the power to veto legislation by withholding the Royal Assent is a rarely used reserve power of the monarch. In practice, the Crown follows the convention of exercising its prerogative on the advice of its chief advisor, the prime minister. The House of Lords used to have the power of veto. However, reform first by a Liberal government and then by a Labour government has seen their powers limited. The Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 saw their powers reduced to being able to amend and delay legislation. They are able to delay legislation for up to one year. Under the 1911 Act, money bills may not be delayed, and under the Salisbury Convention, they cannot delay any bills laid out in the party's manifesto.

In Spain, the article 115 of the Constitution provides that the King shall give his assent to laws passed by the General Courts within 15 days after their final passement by them; the absence of the royal assent, although not constitutionally provided, would mean the bill not to become law.

Australia[link]

Since the Statute of Westminster (1931), the United Kingdom Parliament may not repeal any Act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on the grounds that is repugnant to the laws and interests of the United Kingdom.^[3] Other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations (not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia), such as Canada and New Zealand, are likewise affected. However, according to the Australian Constitution (sec. 59), the Queen may veto a bill that has been given royal assent by the Governor-General within one year of the legislation being assented to.^[3] This power has never been used. The Australian Governor-General himself or herself has, in theory, power to veto, or more technically, withhold assent to, a bill passed by both houses of the Australian Parliament, and contrary to the advice of the prime minister.^[4] This may be done without consulting the sovereign as per Section 58 of the constitution:

When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure. The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.^[5]

This reserve power is however, constitutionally arguable, and it is difficult to foresee an occasion when such a power would need to be exercised. It is possible that a Governor-general might so act if a bill passed by the Parliament was criminal, illegal or in violation of the Constitution.^[6] One might argue, however, that a government would be hardly likely to present a bill which is so open to rejection. Many of the vice-regal reserve powers are untested, because of the brief constitutional history of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the observance of the convention that the head of state acts upon the advice of his or her chief minister. The power may also be used in a situation where the parliament, usually a hung parliament, passes a bill without the blessing of the executive. The governor general on the advice of the executive could withhold consent from the bill thereby preventing its passage into law.

With regard to the six governors of the states which are federated under the Australian Commonwealth, a somewhat different situation exists. Until the Australia Act 1986, each state was constitutionally dependent upon the British Crown directly. Since 1986, however, they are fully independent entities, although the Queen still appoints governors on the advice of the state head of government, the premier. So the Crown may not veto (nor the UK Parliament overturn) any act of a state governor or state legislature. Paradoxically, the states are more independent of the Crown than the federal government and legislature.^[7] State constitutions determine what role a governor plays. In general the governor exercises the powers the sovereign would have, including the power to withhold the Royal Assent.

India[link]

In India, the president has several veto powers. The president can refuse to assent, which constitutes an absolute veto. The president can send the bill back to parliament for changes, which constitutes a limited veto that can be overridden by a simple majority. The president can also take no action indefinitely on a bill, sometimes referred to as a pocket veto.^[8][9]

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom, the royal veto ("withholding Royal Assent") was last exercised in 1707 by Queen Anne with the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.

Canada[link]

According to the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General of Canada may veto a bill by refusing Royal Assent. If the Governor General withholds the Queen's assent, the sovereign may within two years disallow the bill, thereby vetoing the law in question. However, this power has never been used.

Provincial viceroys, Lieutenant Governors, however are able to reserve Royal Assent to provincial bills for the governor general; this clause was last invoked in 1961 by the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan.^{[citation needed]}

United States[link]

All legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as Head of State.

If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it into law. According to Article 1. Section 7 of the Constitution, when the president chooses, if he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto.

If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. If there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto.

Modifications declared unconstitutional[link]

In 1982, the Supreme Court had struck down the one-house legislative veto, on separation of powers grounds and on grounds that the action by one house of Congress violated the Constitutional requirement of bicameralism. The case was INS v. Chadha, concerning a foreign exchange student in Ohio who had been born in Kenya but whose parents were from India. Because he was not born in India, he was not an Indian citizen. Because his parents were not Kenyan citizens, he was not Kenyan. Thus, he had nowhere to go when his student visa expired because neither country would take him, so he overstayed his visa and was ordered to show cause why he should not be deported from the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act was one of many acts of Congress passed since the 1930s, which contained a provision allowing either house of that legislature to nullify decisions of agencies in the executive branch simply by passing a resolution. In this case, Chadha's deportation was suspended and the House of Representatives passed a resolution overturning the suspension, so that the deportation proceedings would continue. This, the Court held, amounted to the House of Representatives passing legislation without the concurrence of the Senate, and without presenting the legislation to the President for consideration and approval (or veto). Thus, the Constitutional principle of bicameralism and the separation of powers doctrine were disregarded in this case, and this legislative veto of executive decisions was struck down.

In 1996, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. This act allowed the President to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures from appropriations bills instead of vetoing the entire bill and sending it back to the Congress. However, this line-item veto was immediately challenged by members of Congress who disagreed with it. In 1998, the Supreme Court declared that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. The Court found the language of the Constitution required each bill presented to the President to be either approved or rejected as a whole. An action by which the President might pick and choose which parts of the bill to approve or not approve amounted to the President acting as a legislator instead of an executive and head of state—and particularly as a single legislator acting in place of the entire Congress—thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. (See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).)

In 2006, Senator Bill Frist introduced the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 in the United States Senate. Rather than provide for an actual legislative veto, however, the procedure created by the Act provides that, if the President should recommend rescission of a budgetary line item from a budget bill he previously signed into law—a power he already possesses pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. II—the Congress must vote on his request within ten days. Because the legislation that is the subject of the President's request (or "Special Message", in the language of the bill) was already enacted and signed into law, the vote by the Congress would be ordinary legislative action, not any kind of veto—whether line-item, legislative or any other sort. The House passed this measure, but the Senate never considered it, so the bill expired and never became law.

Early federal history[link]

The Presidents of the Continental Congress (1774–1781) did not have the power of veto. The President could not veto an act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), but he possessed certain recess and reserve powers that were not necessarily available to the predecessor President of Continental Congress. It was only with the enactment of the United States Constitution (drafted 1787; ratified 1788; fully effective since 4 March 1789) that veto power was conferred upon the person titled "President of the United States".

The presidential veto power was first exercised on April 5, 1792 when President George Washington vetoed a bill outlining a new apportionment formula submitted by then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Apportionment described how Congress divides seats in the House of Representatives among the states based on the US census figures. President Washington thought the bill gave an unfair advantage to the northern states.

The Congress first overrode a presidential veto (passed a bill into law notwithstanding the President's objections)on March 3, 1845.^[10]

U.S. states, veto powers, and override authority[link]

All U.S. states also have a provision by which legislative decisions can be vetoed by the governor. In addition to the ability to veto an entire bill as a "package," many states allow the governor to exercise specialty veto authority to strike or revise portions of a bill without striking the whole thing.

Amendatory veto:
Allows a governor to amend bills that has been passed by the legislature. Revisions are subject to confirmation or rejection by the legislature.^[11]

Line item veto:
Allows a governor to remove specific sections of a bill that have been passed by the legislature. Deletions can be overridden by the legislature.^[12]

Pocket veto:
Any bills presented to a governor after a session has ended must be signed to become law. A governor can refuse to sign such a bill and it will expire. Such vetoes cannot be overridden.^[13]

Reduction veto:
Allows a governor to reduce the amounts budgeted for spending items. Reductions can be overridden by the legislature.^[14]

Package veto:
Allows a governor to veto the entire bill. Package vetoes can be overridden by the legislature.^[15]

Veto power and override authority by state^{[16] [17]}

European parliamentary republics[link]

Presidential veto[link]

Many parliamentary republics in Europe, including Italy, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Hungary, allow a form of limited presidential veto on legislation.

The President of Austria technically has no veto power but may order a referendum on a bill passed by the legislature if he refuses to sign it.

The President of Iceland may refuse to sign a bill, which is then put to universal adult suffrage. This right was not exercised until 2004, by President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who has since refused to sign two other bills. The first bill was withdrawn, but the latter two resulted in referenda.

The President of Hungary has two options to veto a bill: submit it to the Constitutional Court if he suspects that it violates the constitution or send it back to the Parliament and ask for a second debate and vote on the bill. If the Court rules that the bill is constitutional or it is passed by the Parliament again, respectively, the President must sign it.

The President of Ireland may refuse to grant assent to a bill that he or she considers to be unconstitutional, after consulting the Council of State; in this case, the bill is referred to the Irish Supreme Court, which finally determines the matter. This is the most widely used reserve power. The President may also, on request of a majority of the Senate and a third of Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament), after consulting the Council of State, decline to sign a bill "of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained" in an ordinary referendum or a new Dáil reassembling after a general election held within eight months. This latter power has never been used because the government of the day almost always commands a majority of the Senate, preventing the third of Dáil Éireann that usually makes up the opposition from combining with it.

The President of Italy may request a second deliberation of a bill passed by Parliament before it is promulgated. This is very weak form of veto as the Parliament can override the veto by an ordinary majority. The same provision exists in France and Latvia. While such a limited veto cannot thwart the will of a determined parliamentary majority, it may have a delaying effect and may cause the parliamentary majority to reconsider the matter. The President of Republic can also call new Parliament elections.

The President of Estonia may effectively veto a law adopted by Estonian parliament by refusing to proclaim it and demanding a new debate and decision. The parliament, in its turn, may overrride this veto by passing the law unamended for the second time (a simple majority is enough). In this case the President is obliged to proclaim the law or to request the Supreme Court of Estonia to declare the law unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules that the law does not violate the Constitution, the President may not object any more and is obliged to finally proclaim the law.

The President of Latvia may suspend a bill for a period of two months, during which it may be referred to the people in a referendum if a certain number of signatures are gathered. This is potentially a much stronger form of veto, as it enables the President to appeal to the people against the wishes of the Parliament and Government.

The President of Poland may submit a bill to the Constitutional Tribunal if he suspects that bill is unconstitutional or send it back to the Sejm for a second voting. If the Tribunal says that the bill is constitutional or if Sejm passes it by at least three-fifths of the votes, the President must sign the bill.

The President of Portugal may refuse to sign a bill or refer it or parts of it to the Portuguese Constitutional Court. If the President refuses to sign bill without it being declared unconstitutional, the Assembly of the Republic (parliament) may pass it again, in which case it becomes law.

The President of Ukraine may refuse to sign a bill and return it to Parliament with his proposals. If the parliament agrees on his proposals, the President must sign the bill. Parliament may overturn a veto by a two-thirds majority. If Parliament overturns his veto, the President must sign the bill within 10 days.

Liberum veto[link]

In the constitution Poland or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th and 18th centuries, there was an institution called the liberum veto. All bills had to pass the Sejm or "Seimas" (Parliament) by unanimous consent, and if any legislator voted nay on anything, this not only vetoed that bill but also dissolved that legislative session itself. The concept originated in the idea of "Polish democracy" as any Pole of noble extraction considered was as good as any other, no matter how low or high his material condition might be. It was never exercised, however, under the rule of the strong Polish royal dynasties, which came to an end in the mid-17th century. These were followed by an elective kingship. As might be expected, 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 partitioning and the dissolution of the Polish state in the late 18th century.

See also[link]

• Constitution of the Roman Republic
• Popular referendum
• Jus exclusivae, a veto exercised by certain Catholic monarchs by means of their crown-cardinals in papal conclaves to prevent papabili objectionable to them from being elected Pope.
• Sign into law

References[link]

External links[link]

• Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: An Overview (report) by Kevin R. Kosar
• Senate Reference Webpage on Vetoes, which includes lists of vetoes from 1789 to the current day.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since April 2008. It may contain original research. Tagged since April 2008.

Heaven Shall Burn
Heaven Shall Burn performing at 2009's Wacken Open Air.
Background information
Also known as	Concense
Origin	Saalfeld, Thuringia, Germany
Genres	Death metal,[1] deathcore,[2] metalcore,[1] thrash metal[1]
Years active	1996–present
Labels	Century Media, Lifeforce
Associated acts	Caliban, Fall of Serenity
Website	www.heavenshallburn.com
Members
Matthias Voigt Maik Weichert Alexander Dietz Eric Bischoff Marcus Bischoff
Past members
Patrick Schleitzer

Heaven Shall Burn is a German heavy metal band from Saalfeld, formed in 1996.^[2] They combine an aggressive metal sound with lyrics that show a militant support of anti-racism and fighting social injustice.^[2] All members of the band are vegan.^[3]

Biography[link]

Heaven Shall Burn was formed in Autumn 1996, under the name Consense. With the recording of its second demo in early 1997, the band changed its name to Heaven Shall Burn. The name is taken from a Marduk album titled Heaven Shall Burn... When We Are Gathered. In an interview, the band said, "It's not that we're huge Marduk fans, but we liked the name. It sounds a bit provoking and so people ask us again and again for the meaning behind our name. It has been like that since the very beginning. We use the term heaven as a metaphor for some kind of a fake paradise that people create in their heads. Some people close their eyes and don't see the truth surrounding them. So this kind of fake heaven should burn. Some people might think that our name is an anti-religious statement, but it isn't."^[4]

In 1998 the band released an MCD entitled "In Battle There Is No Law" followed by a split-LP with "Fall of Serenity" in 1999. Following these releases the band signed with Lifeforce Records, and in 2000 they released their debut album, Asunder. It was followed by a split-CD with their long-time friends Caliban in 2000, as well as the 2002 album Whatever it May Take. In 2002, In Battle, there is No Law was re-released through Circulation Records.

Upon the release of Whatever it May Take, Heaven Shall Burn toured England, South America, and Iceland. There, the band met Ólafur Arnalds, who wrote three Western classical-style interlude parts for its album Antigone: "Echoes," "Risandi Von," and "Deyjandi Von." The three songs consist mostly of violin and piano, although in Echoes and Risandi Von one can hear weak noises of a war raging in the background.

In 2004, the band released "Antigone" through Century Media Records, which featured more of a melodic edge because of more harmonies and Scandinavian-style dual-guitar work. The album was produced by Patrick W. Engel and engineered by Ralf Müller at Rape of Harmony Studios, Germany. It was mixed and mastered by Tue Madsen at Antfarm Studio, Denmark.

In December 2005, guitarist Patrick Schleitzer left the band amicably. He was replaced by Alexander Dietz, who had already performed guest vocals on some of the band's prior tracks.

In 2006, Heaven Shall Burn released Deaf to Our Prayers via Century Media Records. It was recorded and mixed by producer Jacob Hansen (Mercenary, Raunchy) and following its release, Deaf To Our Prayers entered the official LP charts in Germany at position 65 and in Greece at position 50.^{[citation needed]} The band supported the album with the Hell on Earth Tour throughout Europe, featuring As I Lay Dying and Evergreen Terrace. They toured with Caliban in December 2006 and played on festivals like the Rock Hard Festival and Wacken Open Air Festival in 2007.

The popular and critically acclaimed album "Whatever it May Take" saw a re-release in 2007. The album was a remix of the original recordings and contained no additional material, with the exception of the addition of the track "io", which was a long-forgotten acoustic piece played by Patrick Schleitzer. The album included new artwork and a new song order.

In February 2008, Iconoclast (Part One: The Final Resistance) was released to positive reviews from critics and fans alike. The album lyrically reviews subjects such as Laicism, Nietzsche's “God is dead” philosophy, heroes of the German Resistance in World War II, and their country's ongoing struggle to reconcile with its past. This is a concept album and each song is related to the story of the Iconoclast, a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.^[5]

In May 2009, Heaven Shall Burn released their first DVD, Bildersturm - Iconoclast II (The Visual Resistance). The DVD contains footage of two concerts – Summerbreeze Festival in Germany and Vienna, Austria – both performed in 2008. A bonus CD was released with live performances from both concerts, as well as special features and documentary footage.

Their latest album, Invictus (Iconoclast III), was released in Germany on 21 May 2010 and in the United States in early June of the same year.

Cover songs[link]

Most of Heaven Shall Burn's studio albums include at least one cover song. A complete list of songs the band has covered follows:

Contrition/Fall of Serenity ("Contrition"),

Day of Suffering ("The Eternal Jihad"),

Abhinanda ("Competition by Hatred"),

Bolt Thrower ("The IVth Crusade"),

Liar ("Battlecries"),

Point of No Return ("Casa de Caboclo"),

Disembodied ("Dislocation"),

Hate Squad ("Not My God"),

Die Skeptiker ("Straßenkampf"),

Merauder ("Downfall of Christ"),

Endstand ("Destroy Fascism"),

Edge of Sanity ("Black Tears"),

Paradise Lost ("True Belief"),

Tiamat ("Whatever That Hurts") and

Therapy? ("Nowhere").

Members[link]

Current members

• Marcus Bischoff – vocals
• Maik Weichert – guitar
• Alexander Dietz – guitar
• Eric Bischoff – bass
• Matthias Voigt – drums

Previous members

• Patrick Schleitzer – guitar (1998–2005)

Session members

• Patrick W. Engel – bass on "Whatever It May Take"
• Andre Moraweck – live vocals
• Christian Bass – live drums
• John Gahlert – live vocals

Discography[link]

Studio albums[link]

• Asunder (2000)
• Whatever It May Take (2002)
• Antigone (2004)
• Deaf to Our Prayers (2006)
• Iconoclast (Part 1: The Final Resistance) (2008)
• Invictus (Iconoclast III) (2010)

EPs[link]

• In Battle There Is No Law (1998)

Compilation albums[link]

• In Battle... (There Is No Law) (2002)
• Voces Del Underground (2007)
• A Century Of Classics (2008, Century Media compilation)

DVDs[link]

• Bildersturm – Iconoclast II (The Visual Resistance) (2009) - contains live material from Summer Breeze 2008 and a live performance in Vienna during September 2008.

Other releases[link]

• Heaven Shall Burn / Fall of Serenity (1999) - split with Fall of Serenity
• The Split Program (2001) - split with Caliban
• Tsunami Benefit CD-Single (2005) - split
• The Split Program II (2005) - split with Caliban
• Century Media: Covering 20 Years Of Extremes (2008) - Century Media bands covering each other

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Heaven Shall Burn

• Official website