document_title: Jugantar Patrika

question_text: who was the editor of the journal jugantor published in the time of swadeshi movement

text: Jugantar Patrika

text:
Anushilan Samiti

Influence

Indian Nationalism (Militant nationalism)
Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay
Swami Vivekananda
Sister Nivedita
Aurobindo Ghosh
Shakta philosophy
Indian National Congress
Bipin Chandra Pal
1905 Partition of Bengal
Bande Mataram
Jugantar
M. C. Samadhyayi

Anushilan Samiti

History
Dhaka Anushilan Samiti
Jugantar
Aurobindo
Raja Subodh Mallik
Pramathanath Mitra
Sarala Devi
C.R. Das
Surendranath Tagore
Kanailal Dutta
Jatindra Nath Banerjee
Barin Ghosh
Pulin Behari Das
Bhupendranath Datta
Bagha Jatin
Atulkrishna Ghosh
Jadugopal Mukherjee
Rash Behari Bose
Bhupendra Kumar Datta
Hemchandra Kanungo
Ullaskar Dutta
Khudiram Bose
Prafulla Chaki
Tarak Nath Das
Abhinash Bhattacharya
Guran Ditt Kumar
Naren Bhattacharya
Bhavabhushan Mitra
Bipin Behari Ganguli
Sachindra Nath Sanyal
Jogesh Chandra Chattopadhyay
Pratul Chandra Ganguli
Hindustan Republican Association
Narendra Mohan Sen
Niranjan Sen Gupta
M. N. Roy
Jatin Das
Surya Sen
Pritilata Waddedar
Revolutionary Socialist Party
More

Notable events

Alipore Bomb Conspiracy
Howrah-Sibpur Conspiracy
Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy
Barisal Conspiracy
Rodda robbery
Indo-German Conspiracy
Annie Larsen
Christmas Day plot
Kakori conspiracy
Chittagong armoury raid
More

Related topics

Sir Andrew Fraser
Department of Criminal Intelligence
Sir Harold Stuart
Sir Charles Stevenson-Moore
Sir Robert Nathan
John Wallinger
India House
Paris Indian Society
Abhinav Bharat Society
V.D. Savarkar
Madam Cama
Har Dayal
Ghadar Party
More

v
t
e

text: Jugantar Patrika (Bengali: যুগান্তর) was a Bengali revolutionary newspaper founded in 1906 in Calcutta by Barindra Kumar Ghosh, Abhinash Bhattacharya and Bhupendranath Dutt. A political weekly, it was founded in March 1906 and served as the propaganda organ for the nascent revolutionary organisation Anushilan Samiti that was taking shape in Bengal at the time. The journal derived its name Jugantar (Lit:New Era) from a political novel of the same name by renowned Bengali author Shivnath Shastri. The journal went on to lend its name to the Western Bengal wing of the Anushilan Samiti, which came to be known as the Jugantar group. The journal expounded and justified revolutionary violence against the British Raj as a political tool for independence, and denounced the right and legitimacy of the British rule in India. It was also critical of the Indian National Congress and its moderate methods which was viewed as aiding the Raj. Its target audience was the young, literate and politically motivated youth of Bengal, and was priced at one paisa.

text: The paper rapidly acquired a broad popularity, at one time having a readership of 20,000. Bhupendranath Dutt served as the editor of the newspaper till his arrest in 1907, although it also published articles from a number of noted Bengali revolutionaries including Barindra Kumar Ghosh and Aurobindo Ghosh. It faced prosecution a number of times by the British Indian government for publishing seditious articles. Bhupendranath Dutt was arrested in 1907 for publication of articles "inciting violence against the Government of India", for which he was sentenced to a year's rigorous imprisonment. The paper was ultimately forced to shut down in 1908, amidst financial ruins following the prosecutions, and after the passage of The Newspapers (Incitement to offences) act in June 1908 which made its position vulnerable.


document_title: Toilet (room)

question_text: when did indoor toilets become common in america

root

text: Toilet (room)

text: Names[edit]

text: "Toilet" originally referred to personal grooming and came by metonymy to be used for the personal rooms used for bathing, dressing, and so on. It was then euphemistically used for the similarly private rooms used for urination and defecation. By metonymy, it then came to refer directly to the fixtures in such rooms.[1][2] At present, the word refers primarily to such fixtures and using "toilet" to refer to the room or activity ("use the toilet") is somewhat blunt and may be considered indiscreet.[3][n 1] It is, however, a useful term since it is quickly understood by English-speakers across the world, whereas more polite terms vary by region.

tag: p

text: "Lavatory" (from the Latin lavatorium, "wash basin" or "washroom")[4] was common in the 19th century and is still broadly understood, although it is taken as quite formal in American English, and more often refers to public toilets in Britain.[citation needed] The contraction "lav"[5] is commonly used in British English.[6]

text: In American English, the most common term for a private toilet is "bathroom", regardless of whether a bathtub or shower is present.[7][8] In British English, "bathroom" is a common term but is typically reserved for private rooms primarily used for bathing; a room without a bathtub or shower is more often known as a "WC", an abbreviation for water closet,[9] or "loo".[10] Other terms are also used, some as part of a regional dialect.

text: Some forms of jargon have their own terms for toilets, including ""lavatory" on commercial airplanes, "head" on ships,[11] and "latrine" in military contexts.[12][n 2] Larger houses often have a secondary room with a toilet and sink for use by guests.[13] These are typically known as "powder rooms" or "half baths" in North America,[14] and "cloakrooms" in Britain.[15]

text: Other items in the room[edit]

text: The main item in the room is the sanitation fixture itself, the toilet. This may be the flushing sort, which is plumbed into a cistern (tank) operated by a ballcock (float valve). Or it may be a dry model, which does not need water.

text: The toilet room may also include a plunger, a rubber or plastic tool mounted on a handle, which is used to remove blockages from the toilet drain. Toilets often have a wall mirror above the sink for grooming, checking one's appearance and/or makeup. Some toilets have a cupboard where cleaning supplies and personal hygiene products may be kept. If it is a flush toilet, then the room usually also includes a toilet brush for cleaning the bowl.

text: Methods of anal cleansing vary between cultures. If the norm is to use paper, then typically the room will have a toilet roll holder, with the toilet paper hanging either next to or away from the wall. If instead, people are used to cleaning themselves with water, then the room may include a bidet shower (health faucet) or a bidet. Toilets such as the Washlet, popular in Japan, provide an automatic washing function.

text: A sink (hand basin), with soap, is usually present in the room or immediately outside it, to ensure easy handwashing. Above the sink there may be a mirror, either mounted on the wall, or on a medicine cabinet. This cabinet (which is more typically located in the household's main bathroom). typically contains prescription and over the counter drugs, first aid supplies, and grooming equipment for shaving or makeup.

text: History[edit]

text: Into the modern era, humans typically practiced open defecation or employed latrines or outhouses over a pit toilet in rural areas and used chamber pots emptied into streets or drains in urban ones. The Indus Valley Civilization had particularly advanced sanitation, which included common use of private flush toilets. The ancient Greeks and Romans had public toilets and, in some cases, indoor plumbing connected to rudimentary sewer systems. The latrines of medieval monasteries were known as reredorters; in some cases, these were connected to sophisticated water systems that swept its effluent away without affecting the community's drinking, cooking, or washing water.[16][17] In the early modern period, "night soil" from municipal outhouses became an important source of nitrates for creating gunpowder.[18] 19th century refinements of the outhouse included the privy midden and the pail closet.

text: Indoor toilets were at first a luxury of the rich and only gradually spread to the lower classes. As late as the 1890s, building regulations in London did not require working-class housing to have indoor toilets; into the early 20th century, some English homes were built with an upstairs toilet for use by the owners and an outhouse for use by the servants.[19] In some cases, there was a transitional stage where toilets were built into the house but accessible only from the outside.[20] After World War I, all new housing in London and its suburbs had indoor toilets.[21]

text: Bathrooms became standard later than toilets, but entered working-class houses at around the same time.[22][23] For plumbing reasons, flush toilets have usually been located in or near residences' bathrooms. (Both were initially located above the kitchen and scullery on the same account.) In upper-class homes, the first modern lavatories were washrooms with sinks located near the bedrooms; in lower-class homes, there was often only a collapsible tub for bathing. In Britain, there was long a prejudice against having the toilet located in the bathroom proper: in 1904, Hermann Muthesius noted that "a lavatory [i.e., toilet] is practically never found in an English bathroom; indeed it is considered downright inadmissible to have one there".[27] When toilets were placed within bathrooms, the original reason was cost savings.[21] In 1876 Edward William Godwin, a progressive architect-designer, drew up affordable housing with the toilet in the bathroom, and faced criticism for it.[28]

text: America and most European countries now combine their toilets and bathrooms.[29] Separate toilets remain common in British homes[23] and remain a builder's option even in places where the norm is for the toilet to be in the bathroom.[30] In France,[29][31] Japan,[32][33] and some other countries,[13] separate toilets remain the norm for reasons of hygiene and privacy. In modern homes outside of France,[29] such separate toilets typically contain a sink. In Japan, the toilet sometimes has a built-in sink (whose waste water is used for the next flush) to allow users to clean themselves immediately.[34] Japanese toilets also often provide special slippers—apart from those worn in the rest of the house—for use within the toilet.[33][35][36]

text: Society and culture[edit]

text: In English, all terms for toilets were originally euphemisms.[2] It is generally considered coarse or even offensive to use such direct terms as "shitter",[37] although they are used in some areas. Formerly, broadcast censorship even banned mentions of the euphemisms: Jack Paar temporarily quit the Tonight Show in February 1960 when NBC broadcast news footage in place of a joke he had taped involving the term "WC".

text: Gallery[edit]

text:
An Australian "dunny", a form of outhouse with a pit toilet

A toilet room with an older style flush toilet. The chain (on the upper right) is pulled to empty the elevated cistern (tank).

A Delftware-style toilet

A Japanese temple hotel, with squat toilet and toilet slippers

tag: ul


document_title: Agonist-antagonist

question_text: what is the difference between an opiate agonist and antagonist

text: Agonist-antagonist

text: In pharmacology the term agonist-antagonist or mixed agonist/antagonist is used to refer to a drug which under some conditions behaves as an agonist (a substance that fully activates the receptor that it binds to) while under other conditions, behaves as an antagonist (a substance that binds to a receptor but does not activate and can block the activity of other agonists).

text: Types of mixed agonist/antagonist include receptor ligands that act as agonist for some receptor types and antagonist for others[1] or agonist in some tissues while antagonist in others (also known as selective receptor modulators).

text: Agonist-antagonist opioids[edit]

text: The best known agonist-antagonists are opioids. Examples of such opioids are:

text:
pentazocine, agonist at the kappa (κ) and sigma (σ) and has a weak antagonist action at the mu opioid receptor (μ).[2]
butorphanol, partial agonist at μ- and a pure agonist at κ-opioid receptor and antagonist activity at the delta opioid receptor (δ)[3]
nalbuphine, κ-agonist/μ-antagonist analgesic[4]

text: Agonist–antagonist opioids usually have a ceiling effect – over particular dose they don't increase their potency.[5] Hence agonist–antagonist opioids have a lower addiction potential but also lower analgesic efficacy and are more likely to produce psychotomimetic effects.[6]

text: Agonist–antagonist opioids that block delta while activating mu opioid receptors produce analgesia without the development of tolerance.[7]


document_title: Veto

question_text: who has the power to approve or veto legislation constitution

text: Veto

text: Roman veto[edit]

text: 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 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 decision-making 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 institutions.[2]

text: Westminster systems[edit]

text: 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.

text: Australia[edit]

text: 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:

text: 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]

text: 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 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 viceregal 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.

text: 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.

text: Canada[edit]

text: According to the Constitution 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.

text: Provincial viceroys, called "Lieutenant Governors" (plural), 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.[8]

text: India[edit]

text: In India, the president has three veto powers i.e. absolute, suspension & pocket. The president can send the bill back to parliament for changes, which constitutes a limited veto that can be overridden by a simple majority. But the Bill reconsidered by the parliament becomes a law with or without the assents of President after 14 days. The president can also take no action indefinitely on a bill, sometimes referred to as a pocket veto.The president can refuse to assent, which constitutes an absolute veto.[9][10]

text: Spain[edit]

text: In Spain, Section 91 of the Constitution provides that the King shall give his assent to laws passed by the General Courts within 15 days after their final passing by them. The absence of the royal assent, although not constitutionally provided[clarification needed], would mean the bill did not become a part of the law. Section 90 of the Constitution states that "Within two months after receiving the text, the Senate may, by a message stating the reasons for it, adopt a veto or approve amendments thereto. The veto must be adopted by overall majority."

text: United Kingdom[edit]

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

text: The House of Lords used to have an effective power of veto by refusing to concur in bills adopted by the House of Commons. However, reform first by a Liberal government and then by a Labour government has limited its powers. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 reduced its powers: they can now only amend and delay legislation. They can delay legislation for up to one year. Under the 1911 Act, money bills (those concerning finance) cannot be delayed, and under the Salisbury Convention, the Lords, by convention, cannot delay any bills set out in the governing party's manifesto.

text: United States[edit]

text: According to the Constitution[edit]

text: 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 Government.

text: If the President approves of the legislation, then the President signs it into law. According to Article 1. Section 7 of the Constitution,[11] when the President chooses not to sign or does not approve of the bill, the President 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 any objections to the bill in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto.

text: If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds vote 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 the President chooses to sign it.[12] Historically, the Congress overrides the Presidential veto 7% of the time.[13]

text: A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after its presentment, the President 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.

text: Modifications declared unconstitutional[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: In 1983, 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.

text: 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.

text: 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 the line-item veto 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).)

text: 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.

text: Early history[edit]

text: Intent of the Framers[edit]

text: During the Constitutional Convention, the veto was routinely referred to as a 'revisionary power'.[14]

text: The Veto was constructed not as an absolute veto, but rather with limits, such as that Congress can override a veto, and that the President's objections must be stated in writing.[15] These limits would have been important in the minds of the Founders, given that in Britain the monarch retained an absolute veto (though by this time the power had become a formality). Further, as Elbridge Gerry explained in the final days of the Convention: "The primary object of the revisionary check of the President is not to protect the general interest, but to defend his own department."[16]

text: During the Constitutional Convention the framers overwhelmingly rejected three proposals for an absolute veto.[17][18]

text: Under the Articles and Constitution[edit]

text: The Presidents of the Continental Congress (1774–81) did not have the power of veto. The President could not veto an act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781–89), but he possessed certain recess and reserve powers that were not necessarily available to the predecessor President of the 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".[citation needed]

text: The presidential veto power was first exercised on 5 April 1792 when President George Washington vetoed a bill outlining a new apportionment formula.[19][20] 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.[citation needed]

text: The Congress first overrode a presidential veto (passed a bill into law notwithstanding the President's objections) on 3 March 1845.[21]

text: U.S. states, veto powers, and override authority[edit]

text: 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 bill.

text:
Veto power and override authority by state[22][23]

State
Veto powers
Veto override standard

Alabama
Amendatory, Pocket, Line Item, Package
Majority elected

Alaska
Reduction, Line Item, Package
Regular bills: 2/3 elected; Budget bills: 3/4 elected

Arizona
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected (Misc items have 3/4 elected standard)

Arkansas
Line Item, Package
Majority elected

California
Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Colorado
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Connecticut
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Delaware
Pocket, Line Item, Package
3/5 elected

Florida
Line Item, Package
2/3 present

Georgia
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Hawaii
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Idaho
Line Item, Package
2/3 present

Illinois
Amendatory, Reduction, Line Item (spending only), Package
3/5 elected for package, majority elected for reduction/line item, majority elected required to affirm amendments[24]

Indiana
Package
Majority elected

Iowa
Pocket, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Kansas
Line Item, Package
2/3 membership

Kentucky
Line Item, Package
Majority elected

Louisiana
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Maine
Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Maryland
Line Item, Package
3/5ths elected[25]

Massachusetts
Amendatory, Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected; normal majority required to accept amendments[26]

Michigan
Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3rds elected[27]

Minnesota
Pocket, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected – min. 90 House, 45 Senate

Mississippi
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Missouri
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Montana
Amendatory, Line Item, Package
2/3 present

Nebraska
Reduction, Line Item, Package
3/5 elected

Nevada
Package
2/3 elected

New Hampshire
Package
2/3 present

New Jersey
Amendatory, Pocket, Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

New Mexico
Line Item, Package, Pocket
2/3 present

New York
Pocket, Line Item, Package
2/3 votes in each house

North Carolina
Package
3/5 elected

North Dakota
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Ohio
Line Item, Package
3/5 elected

Oklahoma
Pocket, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Oregon
Line Item, Package
2/3 present

Pennsylvania
Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Rhode Island
Line Item, Package
3/5 present

South Carolina
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

South Dakota
Amendatory, Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Tennessee
Reduction, Line Item, Package
Constitutional majority (Majority elected)[28]

Texas
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Utah
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

Vermont
Pocket, Package
2/3 present

Virginia
Amendatory, Line Item, Package
2/3 present (must include majority of elected members)

Washington
Line Item, Package
2/3 present

West Virginia
Reduction, Line Item, Package
Majority elected

Wisconsin
Amendatory, Reduction, Line Item, Package
2/3 present

Wyoming
Line Item, Package
2/3 elected

text: European republican systems[edit]

text: Presidential veto[edit]

text: Many European republics allow some form of presidential veto on legislation, which may vary, according to their constitutional form or by convention. These include France, Italy, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Hungary.

text: The President of Austria has no veto power, but signs bills into law.

text: The President of Iceland may refuse to sign a bill, which is then put to referendum. 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.

text: The President of France has only a very limited form of suspensive veto: when presented with a law, he or she can request another reading of it by the Assembly, but only once per law. Aside from it, the President can only refer bills to the Constitutional Council.

text: 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.

text: 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 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 Seanad Éireann (the upper house of parliament) 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 eighteen months. This latter power has never been used because the government of the day almost always commands a majority of the Seanad, preventing the third of the Dáil that usually makes up the opposition from combining with it.

text: The President of Italy may request a second deliberation of a bill passed by Parliament before it is promulgated. This is a 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 a new election for parliament.

text: 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 override 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: The President of Portugal may refuse to sign a bill or refer it, or parts of it, to the 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.

text: 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.

text: Liberum veto[edit]

text: 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 was considered 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.

text: Philippines[edit]

text: The President of the Philippines may refuse to sign a bill, sending the bill back to the house where it originated along with his objections. Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. The president may also veto specific provisions on money bills without affecting other provisions on the same bill. The president cannot veto a bill due to inaction; once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill. Once the thirty-day period expires, the bill becomes law as if the president had signed it.