Sorry, but my love of history won't allow slipshod and false versions of it to pass without comment.
Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, and the others, set it up Constitutionally so a president can check the power of Congress, and modify their legislation to get his approval and not a veto. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that our founders were stupid.
It appears that you just had some names rattling around in your mind and blurted them out with little understanding of the roles that they played in history. Of the three that you mentioned, only Madison played a role in the proposals that were presented, debated, and drafted in the compromise that became the Constitution. Madison drafted the Virginia Plan which was a framework for the Constitution that was eventually adopted, but which varied substantially in a variety of details in the final Constitution. Madison's proposal on veto power was for a
council composed of the executive (president) and a number of high court justices to have the power to revise any state or federal laws. Madison's proposal for veto power invested in a council was rejected by the convention.
Jefferson was enjoying life in France during the Constitutional Convention as the U.S. minister there. His insistence, thru his letters to members of the convention, on the later addition of a Bill of Rights in order for him to lend support for adoption of the Constitution, influenced the first ten amendments, but not the debates and compromises that created the Constitution which he largely opposed as giving too much power to the central government.
And Monroe—really? Where did that come from? He voted against adoption of the Constitution as a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention and played no role in the drafting of the Constitution.
"
I'm sure you didn't mean to say that our founders were stupid." They certainly accused each other of lacking intelligence or having stupid ideas at various times. As to your comments on the origins of veto power in the Constitution, well... I'll just say that they lack any foundation in fact or history. Hamilton argued forcefully against the idea of vesting veto power in a council and for an
absolute veto power for the president. He was supported in his proposal by Gouverneur Morris. Others at the convention proposed a compromise to that idea which included an ability for override of a veto by Congress and that was the version adopted. Hamilton presented the necessity of executive veto power in Federalist #73 titled "The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power".
There's nothing dubious about the constitution balancing the power of Congress. Legislation requires the approval of the president. Without it, the legislation fails.
Legislation does not
require the approval of the president—it
seeks it. There is a provision for Congress to override a veto. A president does not have the final say in whether legislation passes or fails. You glossed over that important fact.
It doesn't matter if Madison and Jefferson didn't sign the constitution. They, two of the main influencers of the design of our government, agreed that we needed to limit power which the constitution does by requiring the president's approval for all legislation. Your point is a distinction without a difference.
Jefferson and Madison
were influential, as were Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, and Jay. They often found themselves in vehement disagreement on fundamental issues.
"
Your point is a distinction without a difference." You seem to have a fondness for this phrase and have repeated it again. Unfortunately, you all too often fail to understand either the distinction or the difference.
