Military Commission Act - WAS NOT LAWFULLY PASSED - Pocket Veto Nullified It?

[kpete]

President’s Inaction May Equal Pocket Veto
By brad
UPDATE: H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006
Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed

President’s Inaction Equals ‘Pocket Veto’
by Pat Shannan

“The Military Commission Act is not law!” the man barked. “The ‘pocket veto’ clause of the constitution has already nullified it.”


Here is what the law says and what happens when a sitting president sticks a bill passed by congress into his pocket instead of signing it and sending it back:

-A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.

-Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.

-If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature.

Now to the current specifics.

From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: “…If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevents its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto.

Congress passed 6166 on September 29th, presented it to the President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th. Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had adjourned, thereby rendering it “vetoed” by constitutional standards.

much more at:
http://electbarnhill.com/2006/10/24/presidents-inaction-may-equal-pocket-veto/

http://electbarnhill.com/2006/10/24/presidents-inaction-may-equal-pocket-veto/

[Pirate Smile]

1. Anyone else have Schoolhouse Rock playing in their head.

edit to add - I thought it mentioned a pocket veto but reading the lyrics I see that it just mentions your standard veto. Oh, well.

[zonkers]

4. Schoolhouse rock... and you tracked down a jpeg too? Ha!

[Tuesday_Morning]

13. How a bill becomes a law...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. knr

[Lars39]

3. K&R

I remember this being speculated on here not too long ago.

[kestrel91316]

5. Any attorneys out there want to weigh in on this?

Oh. K&R.

[fasttense]

6. I don't get it

The bill was presented to crazy king george on October 10th and he signed it on the 17th, seven days after it was presented to him. The idiot in chief had ten days to sign it. So I don't understand what the problem is.

[kestrel91316]

8. I don't remember him actually signing it.

[americanstranger]

11. Actually, he appears to have signed it on the 17th.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101700190.html

But your point stands - it was within the ten-day limit.

- as

[elehhhhna]

17. Read the underlined section of the OP. Congress had adjourned.

Nullified his sig.

SNAP!

This is what happens when there's only one attorney in the inner circleof the Presidents Office.

[cui bono]

7. But he signed it within 10 days of receiving it. n/t

[noamnety]

14. self-delete (nt)

[mom cat]

15. Unfortunately, that is how I do the math too.

[elehhhhna]

18. see post 17

[elehhhhna]

16. Re-read this, from the OP, please.

The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed.

[eppur_se_muova]

43. THE ONE EXCEPTION ...

may have saved our collective asses. Let's hope that when the House convenes in January -- controlled by Democrats -- one of the first things they will do is read into the record a declaration that the bill is dead, by Bu**sh**'s inaction.

[elehhhhna]

20. BUT Congress adjourned on the 13th. THAT'S the key.

[0rganism]

35. D'oh! -- now it's time to...

take everything back. Pocket veto is out, since he did sign it. The exception only applies to legislation he doesn't sign (which must be "returned to congress" for reconsideration).

[cui bono]

40. No it's not. The key is that he signed it. Read the rules in the OP.

Further explanation here:

Rule in OP: -A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.

If he signs it, which is what congress wanted since they passed it, everything is fine, so to speak. But if he doesn't sign it within 10 days and it would normally be a pocket veto, it isn't in this case since congress has no ability to override the veto. If he does as they wish it makes no sense for it not to become law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2542818&mesg_id=2543451

[POAS]

9. This interpretation seems to be in error

Specifically the article is correct when it asserts that "The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed."

However from reading deeper into the article we find this timetable, "Congress passed 6166 on September 29th, presented it to the President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th. Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had adjourned, thereby rendering it “vetoed” by constitutional standards."

The date that seems to be the determinator here is the day it is presented to the President (sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days) which was on the 10th, only 7 days prior to his signing the bill.

[elehhhhna]

19. "The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up."

What part of this are y'all not getting? Pretty straightforward. He must sign while they're in session. If not it's nullified. He didn't. It is.

[POAS]

22. The 10 day rule still applies, if not then

any bill passed on the last day of a session could never become law. The exception refers to the difference in what happens at the end of the 10 days the bill sat in the President's pocket. IF Congress is in session the Bill becomes law at the end of the 10 days. If out of session the law is vetoed is unsigned at the end of the 10 day after he gets the bill, not when the session ends.

[0rganism]

26. except the constitution refers to RETURNING the bill to Congress

not signing it, per se.

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

The SCOTUS has held in 1938 that if only one house is in adjournment, the clerk of that house can receive the bill. In this instance, since both houses are adjourned, I don't think that caselaw applies. This could get very interesting.

[POAS]

28. Here is how c-span defines the pocket veto

A Pocket Veto is when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.

Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.

If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature.

[0rganism]

31. c-span is missing the second half of the definition

The keywords are "RETURNED TO CONGRESS."

Not "signed." Not "paraded in front of the media."

"RETURNED TO CONGRESS."

Remember, C-Span is NOT the constitution, or even a constitutional lawyer.

[POAS]

42. Explain something to me

If Congress recesses or adjournes on October 10th and on the same day it passes 20 bills which the President signs into law one per day for 20 days. Which if any of these Bills actually become laws or are they all "pocket vetoed"?

edited to clarify: Assume the bill is laid on the Presidents desk the day they are passed.

[0rganism]

46. agreed - cf #45

[Lenore]

49. But WHY "Returned to Congress"..

I think the confusion on this subject has to do with people thinking *all* bills have to be "returned to Congress". However, it is only VETOED bills that the President returns to Congress. Why? For Congress to then have the chance to take further action on the bill, overriding the veto by 2/3 majority in each house if they can come up with the votes. By this we ensure that the Executive Branch doesn't an absolute veto, when Congress is in session, while retaining a qualified veto subject to override by the 2/3 majority of Congress.

If there is no veto and the bill is signed within the mandatory 10 days, it becomes law and doesn't need to "return to the house" for further review/action. But IF Congress goes into recess AND the President hasn't signed the bill, doesn't sign the bill, a pocket veto has occured.

A pocket veto is the absolute veto, with Congress having no chance to override the veto by the above mentioned vote. Why? Because they are out of session and the bill was submitted to the President less than ten days before their session ends. If the bill is submitted ten days before the end of session and the President fails to sign, then the bill becomes law. And no, it doesn't "return to the house" then either. It moves on to become "Law".

My take on things after reading "The Pocket Veto: It's Current Status" http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf

[0rganism]

50. agreed - I read some more on the topic, and it's quite clear

Vetos remand the bill to Congress, and in the event that they're not available to receive the bill for reconsideration, Congress doesn't get a chance to override.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. No, consider basic law doctrine. A "bill" is a physical piece of paper

Providing physical record that a law was passed. That's how common law works/worked. That's why many contracts and what-not begin "KNOW BY THESE PRESENTS THAT..." "These Presents" refer to the bill and attendant signatures, which must be "PRESENTED" to the soveriegn (early on in Anglo-Saxon rule, when people could not read, a deed or edict would be accompanied usually by tribute or tax to the Soveriegn in order to prod him to recognize the act, so the "presents" were literal) by a court officer in order to be recognized and executed by the sovereign.

In the US, the Congress, representing the People, are sovereign, not the Executive or king. Therefore, the Executive does not keep custody of the laws, he merely enforces them. The Legislative branch keeps custody of the laws, therefore each bill must be presented to the Congress whether it is signed or returned unsigned.

If the President ignores a bill while Congress is in session and it becomes law by default, I am not sure what legal mechanism is used to record the decision but it presumably would involve drafting a copy of the law marked "ratified by CONGRESS, passed into law 10 days later during congressional session X, without signature."

The original reason for the pocket veto loophole seems to be common-law fussing. If Congress is out of session, there might be literally no one to "recieve" a bill, signed or unsigned, and Congress is the keeper of the laws. Just like you can't sign a contract on Sundays if notaries don't work on Sundays.

[cui bono]

38. Well here's the part I don't think you're getting....

Rule in OP: -A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.

If he signs it, which is what congress wanted since they passed it, everything is fine, so to speak. But if he doesn't sign it within 10 days and it would normally be a pocket veto, it isn't in this case since congress has no ability to override the veto. If he does as they wish it makes no sense for it not to become law.

Now, what part of that do you not get?

[Tace]

10. Since When Does Law Matter To Bushco?

[Xenotime]

12. good point

[Richard Steele]

56. Exactly. Rules and laws are meaningless. B*sh invents his own. nm

[Selatius]

21. This means Bush had 3 days to sign the bill, not 10.

The second Congress adjourned, time ran out. He signed it four days later.

This is how I interpret it, but I'm not an expert on constitutional law.

This begs to be asked though: How many laws have passed because nobody realized this???

I could be wrong though, and I use as evidence the fact that no Democrat has raised objection to this bill using this ground. The fact that he signed it within the 10 day limit is a sticking point.

[POAS]

23. Then what would happen to a bill passed just before

the end of a session. IF the simple act of Congress adjourning vetoes a bill there are an awful lot of laws that never legitimately passed.

[Selatius]

25. See, that's the sticking point. I could be completely wrong in my reading.

It could be that as long as Bush signs it within the 10 day limit, he is safe no matter if Congress adjourned or not.

[POAS]

27. Here is the definition from c-span

A Pocket Veto is when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.

Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.

If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature.

[0rganism]

29. only half of the definition - "returned to Congress" is the key

If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

[Selatius]

33. Yes, but "returned" could be interpreted differently in legal terms.

Laws are interpreted not necessarily how they are written but how the courts interpret the meaning of the law. If the courts decided "returned" was synonymous with "signed," the argument is dead in the water, and I would note the fact that no Democratic leader has raised any objection based on this ground as evidence that the legal interpretation may hold true. ("returned" = signed in layman terms)

Either that is true, or the Democrats have also engaged in the same practice and that they don't want to give it up.

[0rganism]

37. There is a specific procedure for returning signed laws to Congress

Hence, the 1929 and 1938 interpretations by the SCOTUS, aka "The Pocket Veto Case" and "Wright vs. United States".

[Selatius]

52. Returning a bill could simply mean vetoing it.

Signing a bill doesn't require it to be returned to Congress for further debate and changes, and if that's true, then it's also equally true if signed during adjournment within the 10 day limit.

[0rganism]

24. hmm, there might just be something to this objection

Article 1, sec. 7: "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

OK - IdiotSon gets the bill on the 10th. He signs it on the 17th, but cannot return it to Congress because they've already adjourned, on the 13th. OP is right, this does look a lot like a pocket veto. GOP fucks up again -- good for them!

[POAS]

36. If your interpretation is correct

then every bill signed while the congress is out of session for longer than 10 days is automatically vetoed since it could not be returned to congress. The simple fact is that the laws are signed and then returned to congress when next in session.

The exception for the "pocket veto" is because the congress cannot reconsider the bill and resubmit it to the President in a timely manner. It is part of the checks and balances system in the same way as the recess appointment.

The other salient point here is that Congress is NOT in adjournment but is in recess. (This is a point I'm not confident on but here goes anyway). Congress adjourns when it holds it's last session with a given set of elected officials (at the end of an election year). The next congress convenes the following January with new members and a "new" congress is then in session. This "new" congress is not allowed to reconsider matters not settled by the "old" Congress and must start with a clean slate. therefore they cannot reconsider the bill passed by the previous congress but pocketed by the President.

[0rganism]

45. Unfortunately, now I'm thinking it's not

Too bad, cos it would have been hilarious. Anyway, from the SCOTUS's 1929 interpretation:

1. Under the second clause in § 7 of Article I of the Constitution, a bill which is passed by both Houses of Congress during the first regular session of a particular Congress and presented to the President less than ten days (Sundays excepted) before the adjournment of that session, but is neither signed by the President nor returned by him to the House in which it originated, does not become a law. P. 672.

So that's that. Bush signed, it's law.

[Leopolds Ghost]

60. You're probably right, because "it shall not be a law" refers only to

bills not returned within 10 days.

HOWEVER, "if Congress by its adjournment PREVENTS THE RETURN"
of a bill (this language implies that adjournment prevents
a bill from being presented to Congress as law)

doesn't that mean that if Congress is adjourned, no bill
can be presented to it after it has adjourned, signed or
unsigned, before or after 10 days is elapsed?

A bill has to be presented to Congress (signed) to become law.

A bill has to be returned to Congress (unsigned) to be vetoed,
otherwise we have no basis for asserting that it has been
vetoed, right? A President can veto without comment or
signing anything, right? But that's an explicit veto.

The only other condition is if a bill is not presented or
returned to Congress at all. That causes it to become law
automatically -- preventing Presidential stonewalling of
important documents -- "Unless Congress by its adjournement
prevent its return." Wouldn't this clause apply even if
10 days had not elapsed??

SCOTUS has made lots of stupid decisions. Kelo and its
predecessors, suported by many Northeastern "liberals" in
states like MD and NJ, are up there, along with property
takings laws that are interpreted in precisely the opposite
way when it comes to corporations.

It's all a moot point because I don't think Congress has
officially adjourned, have they? Don't they always have a
"lame duck session" after the election to consider matters
like invading Iran?

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. In an above post, I noted that bills are traditionally presented to the soveriegn

By an executive officer, whether signed or unsigned.

Signed means the bill is law and Congress is the keeper of the laws.

Unsigned kicks in a Constitutional provision which means the bill
may or may not be law, having been passed by congress; depending
entirely on what the Constitution says about the Prez veto power.

If the bill is not returned at all, however, Congress must redraft a
copy of the damn thing for official records. Can they do that when
Congress is not in session? No, and the next session is not authorized
by tradition of parliament to handle the business of the previous
session unless you start over. So that's the real reason for the
pocket veto.

The question here is, does the "unless" clause highlighted in your
message modify "If a bill shall not be returned" (independent of
the case cited, the case being failure to sign while congress is
in session, which does not constitute a pocket veto -- this section
is bedrock constitutional verbiage and can't be construed to only
refer to the pocket veto -- it outlines every logical outcome for
a bill to be returned to Congress, which is essential because the
Congressional clerks keep our nation's laws)

or does it modify "If a bill shall not be returned within 10 days",
i.e. case specific??

Suppose we have a lease that says "If any rent payment shall not be submitted by Tenant within ten days (Sundays excepted) after shall have been demanded of tenant, the same shall be compounded with interest, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless Landlord by extended leave of absence due to unforseeable circumstance or act of God prevent its return, in which case said rent shall not be compounded but shall be made payable upon Landlord's return." This sort of clause actually exists, I think, in most contracts. What is it called, the "Act of God" clause? This seems to be the Constitutional version of the "Act of God" clause.

A bill has to be returned to Congress either way, because Congress is the representative of the soveriegn and thus keeper of the laws, if it is returned to the NEXT session of Congress unsigned then it is null and void, because one Congress in session cannot handle the business of another. The question is, can it be returned to the NEXT session of Congress SIGNED, before or after 10 days is up, if it was signed after Congress had adjourned? Recess doesn't count. I.e. does "unless" apply to all bills returned to Congress, or just bills returned unsigned?

The bills must be returned either way, since that's the only way of establishing whether they were "signed" or not. Otherwise the pocket veto clause DOES kick in.

I am suspecting the answer, unfortunately is "yes" because early Congress didn't have reliable transportation and the President might not be able to sign a bill for months after Congress passed it and shipped it off to him, assuming he was out of town.

[teryang]

30. He signed the "law" within ten days of presentment

There is no legal basis for a pocket veto.

[0rganism]

32. when did the bill "return to congress"?

THAT's the question we need to be asking.

[leeroysphitz]

41. Doesn't matter when or, in this case, even if it was returned since

both houses were adjourned. If the OP's premise is correct the bill, signed or not, could not be returned to a body that was, at the time, in adjournment.

It sounds good in theory but I'm not holding my breath for an any kind of "Whoops! We forgot to make that bill law" announcement from the whitehouse.

[MadHound]

44. "Returning a bill to Congress"

Is fancy talk for the president vetoing a bill, ie he returns the bill to Congress in order that they may have the opportunity to override it.
Relevant section 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 be shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."

Note the language, ". . .return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated," This is simply a high falutin' way of saying "vetoed"

Sorry, I wish the case were otherwise, but the MCA indeed come into law legally and constitutionally.

[0rganism]

48. you're quite correct - nevermind :(

So let's hope there's a better objection to be had, somewhere.

[MadHound]

51. No problem, archaic language, especially archaic legalese is a royal pain

In the keester. That's why constitutional lawyers make the big bucks.

[Leopolds Ghost]

61. Oh... I was thinking "return" implied signed or unsigned.

Who then does the President deliver the signed bill to
when Congress is not in session? Is it "presented" to
the next Congress if signed, the same way Congress
"presented" it to Bush?

It does read more logically if "returned" only refers
to veto. Adjournment only prevents a veto from being
considered, then. So the whole section only refers to
if a bill has not been vetoed... wait a minute?

Article 1, sec. 7: "If any bill shall not be vetoed by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,

(ok, so far so good...)

unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent it from being vetoed, in which case it shall not be a law."

I think "it" is the key here. "It" refers to "some bill" that has not been vetoed because Congress was not in session and could therefore not consider a veto.

It doesn't say anything about a bill that is signed.

Apparently, the Prez could sit on a bill throughout the winter and sign it during the following session, unless some other clause prevents that.

Is there a clause that specifies what happens when a bill becomes law or sets a time limit on a bill becoming law?

Article 1, Sec. 7 refers only to bills which have not been "returned" owing entirely to Congress not being in session. It does not say anything about bills that do not need to be "returned" to the same session of Congress because the President sits on them, and then signs them at a later date, correct?

[TroglodyteScholar]

34. The OP presents a misinterpretation.

The president has TEN DAYS to sign. He signed in seven. Whether congress has adjourned only becomes relevant after the 10 days have passed. All the pocket veto stuff is conditional on "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him..."

You people seriously need some help with reading comprehension. It's really not unclear at all, and I'm not a lawyer.

On edit: And the "but it wasn't returned to congress" argument doesn't work. If that constituted a pocket veto, no legislation passed in the last days of a session could EVER become law.

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. Well, "returned" apparently only refers to veto. I seem to remember learning that once

And another poster dutifully clarified that. So the entire clause
refers only to bills which are NOT vetoed within 10 days.

It seems the adjourned business only kicks in if the bill IS vetoed
but cannot be returned because congress has adjourned.

So it would appear there is no time limit for signing a moribund bill
(passed by Congress in the waning days of a session) into law while
Congress is no longer in session.

You could do it in seven days, you could do it months later.

The "not be a law" part only kicks in if the President WANTS to veto it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

39. Is the constitution still intact?

I thought the repukes shredded it.

[0rganism]

47. I was wrong in post #24 - pocket veto is NOT in effect

For example, from the "Pocket Veto Case" in 1929, the court observes that
"1. Under the second clause in § 7 of Article I of the Constitution, a bill which is passed by both Houses of Congress during the first regular session of a particular Congress and presented to the President less than ten days (Sundays excepted) before the adjournment of that session, but is neither signed by the President nor returned by him to the House in which it originated, does not become a law. P. 672."

Since the preznit signed, it's a law. Done deal.

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. You're right. "Neither signed or..." is the key here.

SCOTUS is saying that if it is signed, nothing more needs to happen.

If it isn't signed, only then do you need to consider whether it is
possible for the President to return it for a veto or not, and only
then does the 10-day limit kick in.

As I mentioned in my probably entirely inaccurate post, this would seem to allow the President to sign a bill months later which he had previously pocket-vetoed.

In any case, it means that the 10-day limit is irrelevant to anything except vetos.

A president must return an unsigned bill with objections within 10 days or one of two things will happen, depending on whether or not Congress is in session.

Why couldn't they have worded it like that? Simpler.

[Hosnon]

53. This problem was dealt with by the Supreme Court:

Edwards v. U.S., 286 U.S. 482 (1932):

There is nothing in the words of the Constitution which prohibits the President from approving bills, within the time limited for his action, because the Congress has adjourned, and the spirit and purpose of the clause in question forbid the implication of such a restriction.

The Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of the Constitution, determined that adjournment does not effect the President's ability to sign a bill.

And a few in this thread have brought up the "return" language. The Court states:

There is no requirement that bills that are signed should be returned.

The bill is law.

[Land Shark]

54. also, in addition to signature problems, adjournment would have to be

"SINE DIE" or without setting a date to reconvene, but in this case the resolution says Nov. 10 to regather (or similar date)

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. Mustn't a bill that is signed be presented to Congress for its records??

Congress is in charge of keeping the nation's laws, therefore practicality demands that a bill that is signed be returned to either the current or next Congress according to some sort of procedure, right?

How else to record the President's signature or confirm that he had signed it, if he did so in private? "I'm not gonna te--ell!!!"

Congress keeps the official record of USC, therefore any changes to USC need to be recorded by Congress, correct?

[Hosnon]

65. I think the Court was mainly referring to whether or not the bill is a law. A new law doesn't have

to be recorded to be law (under the Constitution). Perhaps it is not applicable unless recorded.

And if the President signed it, s/he would want it known since s/he wants it to be law.

[Marie26]

55. No

It was presented to Bush on Oct. 10, & signed on Oct 17 - only 7 days later. This thing is law.

[Cetacea]

57. K+R

And thank you for all that you are doing, Kpete.
:hi:

[upi402]

66. so... we can protest the vote cheating and not get disappeared???

kick


recommend:kick: