Nie pozwalam!

by on December 15, 2009 at 8:25 pm in Current Affairs, Games, History, Law | Permalink

Liberum veto (Latin for I freely forbid) was a parliamentary device in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It allowed any member of the Sejm to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify all legislation already passed at it by shouting Nie pozwalam! (Polish: I do not allow!).

Here is more.

Wonks Anonymous December 15, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Which is just a bit more undemocratic than the requirement that 2/3 of the Senate, which already over represents the population of small states, agree on any change to our laws.

Of course the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth collapsed, partly because members of the Senate exercised the right of veto at the behest of foreign “campaign contributors”.

Doc Merlin December 15, 2009 at 10:12 pm

Remember, you dems, you loved the filibuster when the republicans were in power. When they return to power you will love it again.

Joe December 15, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Do not want

Chris December 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm

The liberum veto was great for Russia — which was always able to bribe a pole venal enough to prevent Poland from defending itself.

Doc Merlin December 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Also, in the sake of anal retentiveness, I would like to point out that 60/100 is 3/5th not 2/3ds.

Also, the dems filibustered some judges, drilling in anwar, and quite a few other things. The senate rules generally work that if any senator wants to filibuster they can. The other side can respond with asking for a cloture vote which takes 60 votes.
This is a good policy as it means that laws are required to have wide support to pass. This is also why it is good that constitutional amendments need 66 votes to pass. Bills that are that powerful should require /very/ broad support.

The senate requiring 60 votes on controversial bills also means that in a closely divided senate, one person can’t have all the power to pass which side’s bill he wants. In our system, in a 59-40 split, the best that individual can do is block the majority’s bill, he can’t as is the case with a 50-50 split, have all the power to decide who’s bill gets passed.

Because of this, the supermajority requirement for a cloture vote is more democratic in my opinion than not having it.

John December 16, 2009 at 12:02 am

@docmerlin

The senate requiring 60 votes on controversial bills also means that in a closely divided senate, one person can’t have all the power to pass which side’s bill he wants.

This person is the nationally elected Vice President. His right to do this is explicitly enshrined in our constitution.

…In our system, in a 59-40 split, the best that individual can do is block the majority’s bill, he can’t as is the case with a 50-50 split, have all the power to decide who’s bill gets passed.

You are ignoring the fact that this one person will be 3/5 crazier if they are the 60th person than if they are the 50th.

Doc Merlin December 16, 2009 at 4:23 am

Thanks Tomasz,
Yes, requiring some form of supermajority is a good way for the represented minority’s rights to be respected. Its incredibly annoying at times, but I think overall a good thing.

liberalarts December 16, 2009 at 6:42 am

Doc Merlin is right (twice): the filibuster is a good thing. And the 60th marginal vote is different than the 50th. When 60 are needed, there are 60 potential defectors to not vote for cloture, while at 50 there are fewer. So any one person can be that person when only about 60 senators favor a bill. We don’t want a healthcare bill only favored by 50 senators + the vp just as much as we didn’t want Bush court nominees favored only by 50 senators. So major legislation is hard to pass and it can’t be quickly reversed when the ruling party slips out of the majority.

That said, the Polish super majority requirement of 100% described above sounds terrible. That is an idea best left for a 2 page textbook coverage of Knut Wicksell and is not a good way to run a country (as they found out when it failed and was split up by their neighbors).

Andrew December 16, 2009 at 7:15 am

I don’t think “undemocratic” means what you think it means.

Right Wing-nut December 16, 2009 at 9:17 am

It pains me that in a forum as learned as this, the term “democratic” would be used in a positive fashion. We do not live in a democracy, a form of government abhorrent to our founders. We live in a constitutional republic, and that constitution explicitly provides that each house shall form its own rules. That the senate should evolve a super-majority requirement for normal business would neither surprise nor disturb our founders.

Running up the debt & ignoring the Bill of Rights? They would be working on another revolution.

Joshua Holmes December 17, 2009 at 12:53 am

We laugh, but the PLC ran 236 years. The French Revolution was in 1789, 220 years ago, and France has had two empires, five republics, and a few other things in that time.

Traditionalist December 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm

In fact this was not “liberum veto” but rather “liberum rumpo”, the former was official protest of one representative against a certain bill, the latter was, officially, not allowing the Diet to prolongue its assembly past standard six weeks. Liberum rumpo not only ended the assembly, but also effectively nullified all accepted laws.
The background of veto was the fact that in the middle ages Poland was badly divided between small, sovereign principalities, and reunification gave them, in some areas, more liberty than states in America have. Diet of Poland (and, later, the Commonwealth) was not like american Congress, rather, it was like EU, with every country having power to block anything…
More on that subject: Norman Davies, “God’s Playground”.

Naruto Games February 20, 2010 at 7:42 am

I also wish the Senate would require 100 votes. Then they would pass no laws and liberty would most likely increase.

fuwen March 22, 2010 at 10:15 pm

fuwen 2010.03.23

Nothing offers the comfort, quality and luxury of authentic sheepskin, hand stitched Nike Air Max Shoes. Air Max Nike, very popular among Hip Hop and gabber music fans, is first released by Nike, Inc. in 1987. Air Max is known for using large air cushioning unit at the heel. Here we feature the new, updated and sought after Air Max models like Air Max 1, Air Max 2, Air Max 90, Air Max 95, Air Max 97, Air Max TN and Air Max Elite to name a few. We want to give you all the possible information, pictures and release updates about your favorite Air Maxes. Cheap Nike Air Max at airmaxsite.com. We will offer you lowest price, highest quality Air Max shoes and best service. The Nike Air Max 90 shoes and Nike Air Max 180 are two hot Nike shoes in 2010.

rosetta stone spanish July 30, 2010 at 4:43 am

It allowed any measure favored by the majority to be defeated by the whim of one borderline personality who would not hesitate to oppose as unacceptable a program that he was on record as having supported just weeks previously.

ugg shoes September 22, 2010 at 1:37 pm

It’s pretty good.

バックリンク November 17, 2010 at 9:48 am

looks wonderful here!I like these ideas!

Used Cars February 22, 2011 at 9:11 am

features instantly grabs the attention of receiver. The gifts with unique traits are dignified to win hearts and make occasions celebrative. Such
Used Cars

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: