Democrats say Bush can’t pocket veto defense bill

[babylonsister]

:applause:

Democrats say Bush can’t pocket veto defense bill
By Walter Alarkon | Posted: 1/2/08 1:16 PM
January 02, 2008


House Democrats and the Bush administration appear on the verge of a new constitutional fight over whether President Bush can pocket-veto the defense authorization bill.

The White House on Monday said it was pocket-vetoing the measure, but a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the president cannot use such a measure when Congress is in session. The distinction over whether the president can pocket-veto the bill is important because such a move would prevent Congress from voting on an override.

“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. He said the Speaker is keeping all legislative options on the table.

White House Spokesman Tony Fratto responded by saying that the president returned the bill in an appropriate way and is looking forward to working with congressional leaders to fix it when Congress returns this month.

The defense bill passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Still, it’s unclear whether those majorities would hold, since House Republican leaders have called on Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to make changes to the bill demanded by the president.

A pocket veto occurs when the president neither vetoes nor signs a bill within 10 days, excluding Sundays, after its passage while Congress is adjourned. When Congress is in session, any bill that the president does not act on becomes law, according to the Constitution. The Senate has been in pro forma session over the last two weeks, while the House has been out of session.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-bush-cant-pocket-veto-defense-bill-2008-01-02.html

[The Stranger]

1. The Nancy Disaster feigns outrage, but she is covering for the Criminals.

In fact, she may be complicit in their crimes.

[aquart]

11. Oh, stuff it.

If you have nothing but invective, stop wasting bandwidth.

[Bitwit1234]

24. Maybe Pelosi has not gotten the bills we want passed but

why in the hell don't some of the nay sayers walk in her shoes. How can you get a law passed when the republicans won't let you bring it to the floor. If you get enough votes to pass it, bush vetoes it, and it comes back how can you make 17 republicans help over ride that veto....

Maybe they think some bills are so important, they have to compromise. I just wish democrats were as "together" as the republicans. I think most of them just like to criticize and pick anything they can to yell about.

[The Stranger]

31. That is exactly what I am trying not to do: stuff it.

I am expressing my emotions and getting it out.

Besides, what about your invective?

[AndyA]

2. Except one...

He said the Speaker is keeping all legislative options on the table.

What about IMPEACHMENT? That one has certainly been wisked off the table.

[tritsofme]

3. Most likely result: veto override in House fails

The issue goes away.

[Dhalgren]

5. The point is that if Congress is in session a non-signed bill becomes law.

So the fight will be whether or not the Congress is in session. The Democrats will fold because of the Bush-Dog Democrats, but it will still be disheartening...

[Vincardog]

6. The veto never happened. Remember it became law when he did not sign it and they were in session.

[tritsofme]

21. It was a veto by any other name.

He returned to the House clerk as though it was vetoed.

I don't think even Pelosi is arguing the bill is now law.

[Dhalgren]

28. It doesn't matter what he does with the bill; if he doesn't sign it and

the Congress is in session, it becomes law just as if he signed it. The point is that if the Congress is out of session and he doesn't sign it, it is the same as a veto. The argument will be whether congress is in session or not.

[Richard Steele]

9. No override is neccessary, because he didn't VETO it. It's a LAW now. nm

[Captain Hilts]

15. We just don't have enough of a majority. It's that simple. nt

[Dhalgren]

4. This is where the fight will take place:

"(W)hile the House has been out of session." The Dictator will say that since the House was not in session and the House is where the bill originated, his refusal to sign constitutes a veto. This is where the Republicans and the Bush-Dog Democrats will force the Weak-willed Democrats to fold...

[aquart]

13. Or not.

Whatever they do is precedent and they are actually conscious of that. The Republicans have to know that a Democrat is coming in. How much power do they want that Dem to have? Right now, it's going for total.

[baldguy]

7. And what are tehy gonna do about it?

Send him a sternly worded letter?

IMPEACH THE FUCKER ALREADY!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. I hope they don't override the veto and send him one with some teeth.

And, a lot less money to spend on war.

But, they'll probably "compromise" and give him what he wants.

[rodeodance]

10. I wonder if nancy has asked the Repugs if they will go against bush???

[aquart]

14. That is not the question.

The question is, do you want to make a decision that gives more power to the incoming president? Because the Republicans know from their pitiful fundraising efforts that the next president will not be a Republican.

[Nite Owl]

12. What am I not understanding?

If he cannot pocket veto it why is Pelosi's office talking about overriding a veto? Isn't it automatically passed now and there is no need for another vote, it's law now?

“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,”

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. The statement confused me also

Perhaps someone who speaks political double-speak will translate for us?

[Dhalgren]

18. It's called "the Belligerent Concession".

You say, "I'm sorry. I won't do it again." Only in a very nasty, sharp manner...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. That's pretty much how the first part of the statement reads

But why then add the part about "keeping all legislative options on the table?" It seems pretty out of context to the beginning of the statement.

[paulk]

17. he returned the bill to the House, in fact he did veto it

and because he vetoed it it's open to an overide vote. The White House is trying to say it was a "pocket veto" and therefore not subject to an overide vote.

[Dhalgren]

20. If the Congress is in session, failure to sign the bill makes it a law, period.

The question is, is Congress in session?

[tritsofme]

23. He effectively vetoed the bill and sent it back to the House.

However in his veto message to the clerk he declared that it was a pocket veto and not subject to override, therein lies the controversy.

Unless there is a successful override attempt, nothing will likely come of it.

[Dhalgren]

29. A pocket veto only works if congress is not in session. The Democrats

have been saying all along that they have been in session. An unsigned billed while congress is in session becomes law automatically. An unsigned bill while congress is out of session is a pocket veto and is dead. The question is, is congress in session.

[tritsofme]

30. I don't think its that simple.

He returned the bill to the House clerk as though he vetoed it, however he also declared it to be a pocket veto.

It looks like the House is going to move forward under the assumption that the bill was vetoed and is subject to override.

[onenote]

26. failure to sign only results in a bill becoming law if its not returned to congress

Chimpy is trying to have it both ways. He returned the bill, but claimed that his lack of signature came during a time when Congress wasn't in session and therefore there is no override option. Since he did return the bill, the safer argument in response to his ploy is that he vetoed the bill and that its subject to override.

[onenote]

27. assuming the bill wasn't subject to pocket veto, the issue remains

as to whether chimpy's actions constituted a "regular" veto of the bill, which then makes it subject to override. THat is probably the better (and safer) reading of what is going on (rather than claiming that he neither vetoed it nor signed it so has become law).

[robinlynne]

19. Then it becomes law, mother f........

Unfortunately "it" is war funding. I wish we were fighting to pass something which would do good for the world.

[onenote]

25. everything you'd ever want to know about this issue: Link here

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

Louis Fisher, who is quoted in the article linked in the OP, is the author of this report on the use/abuse of pocket vetoes.

As I see it, its unlikely that the Congress will sit back and rely on the argument that because the bill was not signed within 10 days while COngress was in session, it became law. The risk is that the so-called pocket veto could/would be construed as an actual veto, because the bill was returned to Congress.

So, the more likely approach will be to treat it as a veto and try to override. I would hope that the leadership pursues this approach rather than fiddle with the bill in response to chimpy's supposed concerns. Repubs who vote to sustain the veto put themselves in an awkward position: virtually every repub in the House and Senate voted for the bill. So by reversing themselves, they seem to indicate that they didn't know what they voted for or that they just follow whatever chimpy says. Either way, Dems get a nice little point to make during the 2008 campaign.