Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Possible show-down on the pocket veto?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:11 AM
Original message
Possible show-down on the pocket veto?
via TPMMuckraker's Paul Kiel:

Last week, the president claimed to have sunk Congress' defense authorization bill by pocket veto. Now Democrats are saying he can't do that.

We'll start first with the Constitution says, and then go on to what the Bush administration says it says.

Article I, section 7 of the Constitution says that the president must sign or veto legislation passed by Congress within ten days (not counting Sundays). If he signs it, it becomes law. If he vetoes it, then Congress can override his veto with a two-thirds majority in both houses. And if he does not sign or veto it while Congress is in session, it becomes law. But if Congress is not in session and he doesn't sign it, then it neither becomes law nor can Congress override it. The bill is dead. That's a pocket veto.

---snip---

The Hill gets a take on the White House's tap dancing from a Constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress -- he gives it a resounding thumbs down.

As for what happens from here, it's not clear. If the House moves for an override next week and the White House objects, the whole thing could end up in court. That's probably not something the administration wants to happen. The pocket veto seems to be an executive power which, like executive privilege, is very infrequently tested in court. But with this administration's fervent belief in the executive's power, you never know.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005010.php

This could get interesting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dear God, we don't want to be confrontational!
People might start to believe Democrats have backbones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I am thinking that we may start to see a little more spine this year.
one can always hope...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. everything you'd ever want to know about pocket vetoes
Written by the same Library of Congress researcher cited in the Hill article:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. actually we shouldn't have to even override
The bill is law. He didn't veto it while Congress was in session. It becomes law without his signature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. not necessarily
He returned it to Congress without his signature within ten days after it was enacted. THere's a pretty strong case to be made that while he would like to claim he pocket vetoed the bill, he actually vetoed it the "regular" way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. He didn't sign or veto
And if he does not sign or veto it while Congress is in session, it becomes law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. there are no "magic words" for vetoing a bill
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution:

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it originated..."

Chimpy's "statement of disapproval" of the bill states: "I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections."

Sounds like a regular veto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Under this light it all makes more sense
I failed to understand yesterday why if the Democrats were professing the pocket-veto invalid, why they were also saying they'd treat any bill returned to Congress as open to an override vote.

Basically, the whole pocket-veto issue is immaterial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I thought that to - which makes even for a more interesting showdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. But Congress is still in session...
According to the rules. He cannot do a pocket veto. He can veto the bill within ten days or it is law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. He didn't do a pocket veto (although he tried). However, he did do a regular veto
which is why the bill didn't become law. He returned the bill to the House with a memorandum stating his objections. That's all the Constitution requires. Whether he calls it "veto" or a statement of disapproval or a red bicycle doesn't really matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. junior wipes his ass with our constitution...daily
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. Why go for an override???
If * didn't veto it, then it is LAW.

Just act like it passed (not much acting there) and start investigations if the administration does not abide by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. one more time: he did veto it
The Constitution doesn't use the word "veto" -- it merely states that the President has to sign a bill or return it to the house from which it originated within ten days "with his objections". Chimpy's "statement of disapproval" states "I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections."

It doesn't matter that he didn't call it a veto or that he thought he could pocket veto it. What he did met the Constitutional requirements of a veto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Any guess whether or not the WH backs down per their claim
of a pocket veto, when Congress holds an override vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I suspect that depnds on the outcome of the override.
I hope the Democratic leadership holds firm on this. The bill passed with virtually unanimous repub support (more Democrats voted no than repubs), and if enough repubs switch votes on this, they are susceptible (one would think) to the charge (during the 2008 campaign) that either they voted for the bill without knowing what was in it or they simply switched position because chimpy told them to.

There is an informative paper regarding the use/abuse of the pocket veto here:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. and if they vote for it - and bushco claims they can't because
it was a pocket veto that requires that they start from the beginning... then what "We order you to spend the money!" "No we will not!" what a wierd drama could unfold.

But I doubt it will come to that. The Hill article (that Kiel links to) says that some repubs have backed away from it - wanting to go into discussions per the "concerns" raised by the president. I think it is a bs way of trying to save face for the president (and waste tax payer money for all the extra work time that will be required).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Actually, the Constitution says that he must return it to the "issuing House of Congress".
So, if the House of Reps was not in session, the Dictator could not return the bill, so a pocket veto stands. I think that this is the problem Congress has. How will the courts rule on this? Has "Congress" been in session because the Senate has been or if the House is in recess, does that mean "Congress" is not in session? I think Herr Bush just might win this one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Interesting...
Hmmm. All spending bills do originate in the House. The House was not in session.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. there is a strong case for limiting pocket vetoes
to the adjournment that occurs after the second session of congress, and not having it apply to inter-session adjournments.

see,e.g.,Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F.Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1976); Barnes v. Kline, 759 F.2d 21, 30 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. If any house is in session, then Congress is in session.
Let's hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
20. But, why???
Why would he want to veto the defense spending bill? I thought he whupped the Democrats and got what he wanted in that bill? Would he put a "political victory" over the needs of the military? Make the courts decide. Let him hold the heat while they do it. It doesn't make sense that he would do such a thing with this bill? It would be insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. think about what you just said... "it would be insane"
doesn't that describe a lot of what they have done (and gotten away with)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. There was a line or two that was very detrimental to bu$h having to do with his crimes.
I can't remember at the moment what is was. I do remember it was just a short sentence or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. I don't recall the hang-up, but it apparently took congress
by surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
22. Someone ask the Nancy Disaster -- can we get impeachment back on the table?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-03-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
24. Maybe we could negotiate again? Go along to get along? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC