Argument
Argument:
If an action violates the will of the majority, it is morally wrong.
A presidential veto on behalf of the United States citizens in matters of immigration violates the will of the majority.
Therefore, Presidential vetoes on behalf of the United States citizens in matters of immigration are morally wrong.
Counter:
Majority of U.S. citizens voted the President into office to look out for well being as a country and he is doing what he thinks is right based on the power that we, as a nation, have given him. It is morally right for the President to veto when it comes to immigration issues. The president portrays themselves as the representation of the entire nation when it comes to issues that the United States upholds. As citizens of the United States we elect a president based on his ethics and morality; we do this so that we, as a majority, can create a moral standard. As an act to uphold the moral standards developed by the majority and set by the President, vetoes made by the President are therefore morally permissible.
Defense:
An example of a President vetoing an immigration bill was in 1914, when President Wilson vetoed the Burnett Immigration bill. He stated his reasoning was that he did not want to change United States tradition even though it was against the wishes of the countries citizens. The President is supposed to represent the wishes of the majority of United States citizens, therefore if he vetoes an immigration bill against the wishes of its citizen, it is morally wrong. Thus if the President acts against the wishes of the majority of United States citizens, it morally wrong.
View Full Essay