Bush to challenge Senate's pro-forma session blocking his recess appointments?

Bush gives pocket veto to defense bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush


CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bush announced he would scuttle the bill with a "pocket veto" — essentially, letting the bill die without his signature 10 days after he received it, or the end of Dec. 31.

But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session because it has held brief — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.

The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.

It was unclear how the executive and legislative branches would determine whether, in fact, Bush's lack of signature would amount to vetoing the bill or turning it into law.

"My withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law," Bush said in a statement of disapproval sent to Congress.

The president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed."

defense bill.

the Senate could not have been in 'session'. It was in session and a pocket veto should not work.

If a pocket veto works for Bush then recess appointments should work also.

to set its own rules. If the Senate says it's not adjourned, it's not adjourned. Even THIS Supreme Court would rule that way, 9-0.

So will the Dems back down? The budget should be law in 10 days. If the Dems honor his veto they giving support to the idea that the Senate isn't in session. If they don't funding for the troops goes into some court delay at the Supreme Court level.

Good Post

It doesn't matter whether the President recognizes the session or not. It isn't required that the President acknowledge that the Senate is in session for the Senate to be in session. If the Senate does not stand up to this, then it has lost all of its power. Even the Republican Senators have to see this. If the Senate rolls over on this, then it is dead. Dead. Period. Dead...

if he was really concerned about the issue a quick and clear VETO would clear everything up. But this is another needless showdown with the weak Senate.

Dodd save us!

can destroy Congress. They have been trying to do this since day one of their Coup.

doing exactly anything they wanted to do. All of a sudden, there are roadblocks and litigation waiting around every corner for Bush. I can almost picture him stamping his feet in rage and screaming at his aides to 'do something.'

Amazing really. He finally has a wall, however delicate and slight it may be, in front of him.

Time for the Senate and House to drag his screaming ass into contempt proceedings--under oath--and settle his hash for good.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Democrats_protest_Bushs_surprise_veto_of_defense_bill.html

In any case, congress can just overturn the veto on this one. They have more than 2/3 votes.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf

As this paper discusses, presidents have, for some time, attempted to use the pocket veto rather than the return veto in an effort to prevent Congress from overriding.

WHile Congress could try and take the position that chimpy's failure to sign the bill within 10 days during a time when Congress was in session means that the bill has become law, it is more likely, I suspect, that they will treat chimpy's action as a "return" veto and will schedule a vote to override. Given the initial vote, it is likely the override will succeed (its going to be hard for enough repubs to switch their votes in an election year). If they do so, then the matter is teed up for a court battle over whether the override was effective or whether chimpy's effort to pocket veto the bill was successful. Based on the attached paper, I suspect chimpy's argument will go down in flames. Hell, even robert bork disagrees with the position chimpy is taking and with the prospect of a Democratic president, repubs in Congress aren't going to want to set this precedent.

Not necessarily on the actual bill.

This is another showdown that could have big implications, so I'd like to see it stay on the front page for awhile. Is it a tempest in a teacup or does the Bush admin. really think they can get away with what they are trying to do (all the while being a lame duck administration)? Would the Republican senators let it happen knowing that a Democratic president might then use the same tactic to get around them (if they regained the majority in the Senate in 2010 and started using Pro Forma sessions?) Or is it only a matter for the Supreme Court?

hmmmmmmm