Bush pocket vetoes defense bill, but how?

[epo]

As reported by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8TQOFK01), President G.W. Bush "pocket vetoed" the recently passed defense bill, which not perfect but any means, provided nearly $200 billion for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, provided better benefits for veterans, raised pay for active troops and provided greater oversight of our defense contractors.

So of course, Bush, the greater fiscal conservative that he is (ha!), pocket vetoed the bill on a Friday. Why on Friday? Friday is the day that bad news is buried in Washington.

But here is the rub for me...He pocket vetoed the bill on the basis that the Constitution allows him the right to "pocket veto" any bill during a recess of Congress: From the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071228-5.html):

In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress.

So a "pocket veto"? What is that? A pocket veto (http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/pktveto.htm)is a legal trick in which a President fails to sign a bill during an adjournment of Congress, hence vetoing the bill. The rub is that if the Congress is in session and he fails to sign...the pocket veto fails and the bill becomes law.

And here is the kicker, Majority Leader Harry Reid has kept the Senate in session (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news)to thwart any recess judicial nominations by Bush. So legally, the Congress is in session.

So does this mean that if Bush holds to the pocket veto that the defense bill passes? And why in the fuck didn't Bush have the stones to just veto it? He didn't want to be overriden? He didn't want to brand himself and the Republican Party as being anti-troop? Does Bush think this is a dictatorship and he is above our laws? Or is Bush that fucking dumb that he didn't understand what a pocket veto meant?

[PapaBear]

That sounds like dirty pocket pool to me.

[Fezticle98]

As reported by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8TQOFK01), President G.W. Bush "pocket vetoed" the recently passed defense bill, which not perfect but any means, provided nearly $200 billion for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, provided better benefits for veterans, raised pay for active troops and provided greater oversight of our defense contractors.

So of course, Bush, the greater fiscal conservative that he is (ha!), pocket vetoed the bill on a Friday. Why on Friday? Friday is the day that bad news is buried in Washington.

But here is the rub for me...He pocket vetoed the bill on the basis that the Constitution allows him the right to "pocket veto" any bill during a recess of Congress: From the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071228-5.html):




So a "pocket veto"? What is that? A pocket veto (http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/pktveto.htm)is a legal trick in which a President fails to sign a bill during an adjournment of Congress, hence vetoing the bill. The rub is that if the Congress is in session and he fails to sign...the pocket veto fails and the bill becomes law.

And here is the kicker, Majority Leader Harry Reid has kept the Senate in session (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news)to thwart any recess judicial nominations by Bush. So legally, the Congress is in session.

So does this mean that if Bush holds to the pocket veto that the defense bill passes? And why in the fuck didn't Bush have the stones to just veto it? He didn't want to be overriden? He didn't want to brand himself and the Republican Party as being anti-troop? Does Bush think this is a dictatorship and he is above our laws? Or is Bush that fucking dumb that he didn't understand what a pocket veto meant?

If just the Senate is in session, then I guess the bill is "pocket vetoed."

[epo]

If just the Senate is in session, then I guess the bill is "pocket vetoed."

But isn't the Senate, a wing of Congress AND in session? Plus they are the wing that would override a veto!

And they have remained in session to prevent recess judicial nominations and Bush didn't beat that. How can he legally beat this?

[Fezticle98]

But isn't the Senate, a wing of Congress AND in session? Plus they are the wing that would override a veto!

And they have remained in session to prevent recess judicial nominations and Bush didn't beat that. How can he legally beat this?

Senate alone has confirmation powers.

To override a veto, you need a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress, I believe. And being that one of them is not in session, I surmise that the "pocket veto" is in effect.

[thejives]

It looks like Bush will get his way.
In Jan. congress will eliminate the clause he finds objectionable and our brilliant president doesn't look like the incompetent ass he is who didn't understand the contents of the bill before it was passed.

[epo]

Ha! Here is a constitutional example of this tactic not working for the President:

Wright vs. the United States (1938) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=302&invol=583) and the premise of the case:

The question is whether Senate Bill 713, 74th Congress, 1st session, which was passed by both Houses of Congress, became a law.

The bill was presented to the President of the United States on Friday, April 24, 1936. It had originated in the Senate. On Monday, May 4, 1936, the Senate took a recess until noon, Thursday, May 7, 1936. The House of Representatives remained in session. On May 5, 1936, the President returned the bill with a message addressed to the Senate setting forth his objections. The bill and message were delivered to the Secretary of the Senate. When the Senate reconvened on May 7, 1936, the Secretary advised the Senate of the return of the bill and the delivery of the President's message. 1 On the same day [302 U.S. 583, 586] the President of the Senate laid before it the Secretary's letter and the message of the President of the United States. The message was read and with the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Claims.

And the verdict from the Court:

'The adjournment of a House for not more than three days, without the consent of the other House is not an adjournment of Congress.

Face Bush! Face! You are in direct violation of the law of our nation. Now Congress...it's time to nut up.

[HBox]

Face Bush! Face! You are in direct violation of the law of our nation. Now Congress...it's time to nut up.

.....

































































































Yeah I'm sure that will happen.

[Fezticle98]

Ha! Here is a constitutional example of this tactic not working for the President:

Wright vs. the United States (1938) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=302&invol=583) and the premise of the case:



And the verdict from the Court:



Face Bush! Face! You are in direct violation of the law of our nation. Now Congress...it's time to nut up.

I think the House has been in recess for more than 3 days. If so, then that case isn't decisive.

[thejives]

Yeah. We have a wimpy congress.
I'd rather they use up their courage on something like stopping the war.

[A.J.]

Cool -- just so long as there's a rocket in that pocket!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/na4.jpg

[scottinnj]

It was reported on Rachel Maddow's show on AA that the president vetoed the bill because of a provision in it that allows the Iraqi governments assetts here in U.S. Banks to be able to be taken by U.S. citizens who sue the Iraqi government for crimes committed by the Hussein regime to their family members.

It is to be able to keep the current government exempt from the deeds of the old government under Hussein, and become bankrupted by U.S. juries awarding punitive damages to Iraqi-Americans as a result of the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein.

[thejives]

The president is incompetent.

That provision was in the bill this whole time. If the White House did any work with congress at all he could have threatened the veto, had it taken out, and then the troops would get their 3.5% raise on time.

Instead, they get less of a raise and the budget has this much more hassle.

[scottinnj]

The president is incompetent.

That provision was in the bill this whole time. If the White House did any work with congress at all he could have threatened the veto, had it taken out, and then the troops would get their 3.5% raise on time.

Instead, they get less of a raise and the budget has this much more hassle.


Yeah, that's what doesn't make any sense about this. It's everything he wanted, no withdrawal timetable and tons of money.

He should have spoken up a bit sooner, I wonder what the political ploy is behind doing this? He has to be doing it for a reason.

[DolaMight]

It was reported on Rachel Maddow's show on AA that the president vetoed the bill because of a provision in it that allows the Iraqi governments assetts here in U.S. Banks to be able to be taken by U.S. citizens who sue the Iraqi government for crimes committed by the Hussein regime to their family members.

It is to be able to keep the current government exempt from the deeds of the old government under Hussein, and become bankrupted by U.S. juries awarding punitive damages to Iraqi-Americans as a result of the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein.

If that is the real reason he should have veto'd this bill. With the government finally making some progress it would be a shame to be bankrupted because of the actions of the former government. They should be allowed a fresh start.

[scottinnj]

Yeah, but he could have said something about that before the bill passed Congress. I'm sure if that was his real motivation, Congress would have dealt with it before it went to the White House.

Now it's all a waste of time.

[Yerdaddy]

It was reported on Rachel Maddow's show on AA that the president vetoed the bill because of a provision in it that allows the Iraqi governments assetts here in U.S. Banks to be able to be taken by U.S. citizens who sue the Iraqi government for crimes committed by the Hussein regime to their family members.

It is to be able to keep the current government exempt from the deeds of the old government under Hussein, and become bankrupted by U.S. juries awarding punitive damages to Iraqi-Americans as a result of the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein.

The claims of Iraqi-Americans against the old regime would bankrupt the government of Iraq? I call bullshit. There's another reason he vetoed it.