The Man Who Won't Veto: One power that George W. Bush eschews.

In 1788, as the Founders debated whether the president of the United States should have the power to veto acts of Congress, Alexander Hamilton argued that the president should be able to reject newly passed laws -- and that the mere threat of using such a weapon would help keep Congress in line. "A power of this nature in the executive will often have a silent and unperceived, though forcible, operation," Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 73. "When men, engaged in unjustifiable pursuits, are aware that obstructions may come from a quarter which they cannot control, they will often be restrained by the bare apprehension of opposition, from doing what they would with eagerness rush into, if no such external impediments were to be feared."

Was there such fear recently on Capitol Hill, when Congress passed the $190 billion farm bill -- a bill that President George W. Bush had indicated he would sign no matter what was in it? Were members of Congress fearful when they passed an education bill he was similarly determined to sign? Were they afraid when they passed campaign-finance reform, which many serious scholars believe is unconstitutional? In each case, Bush not only did not veto the legislation, he did not threaten to veto, either -- forfeiting the power that Hamilton saw as critical to the president's relationship with Congress. In fact, in 16 months in office, Bush has yet to veto a single bill.

All of this has some conservatives wondering what it will take for Bush, who has moved aggressively to protect the other powers and prerogatives of the presidency, to veto a bill. "He's veto averse," columnist Robert Novak said recently. "The problem is, he may lose his base."

Maybe, and maybe not -- polls consistently show that Bush remains very popular with conservative Republicans. But the president is in danger of losing something else: his credibility with Congress. Yes, he has threatened to veto a few spending measures, and won some concessions from lawmakers. And yes, he won a compromise on a "patient's bill of rights" in part by threatening a veto (although his opponents on the Hill knew he really, really didn't want to do it). But veto threats will work only so long as the other side believes the president might go through with it. Without that, they're just words.

Part of Bush's veto reluctance has to do with his delicate relationship with Congress. While Democrats try to stop Bush's agenda in the Senate, GOP control of the House means that any bill that reaches the president's desk has gone through the senior leadership of his own party. "For the House Republican leaders to schedule something that the president then turns around and vetoes is almost a repudiation of the House leadership," says one senior GOP aide on the Hill. "The White House can't figure out a way to veto a bill without embarrassing House Republicans." (Campaign finance would have been an opportunity to do just that, since its supporters won House approval by bypassing the leadership, but Bush still chose not to act.)

While it stands to reason that a president with a Congress controlled by his own party would veto fewer bills -- Bill Clinton did not veto any bills in his first two years in office, when Democrats controlled both houses -- presidents in the past have used the veto liberally when control of Congress was divided or in the other party's hands entirely. Ronald Reagan, who had Republican control of the Senate for six of his eight years in office, vetoed 78 bills. Bush's father, who faced opposition in both houses for his entire term, vetoed 44 bills. Whatever the case, when the president vetoes something, Congress is usually unwilling or unable to come up with the two-thirds vote it takes to overturn it. George H. W. Bush was overturned just once. Bill Clinton vetoed 38 bills and was overturned twice. If Bush decides to veto ...