It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Gives Pocket Veto to Defense Bill

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:51 PM
Well, he's at it again, now Bush is trying to gain absolute veto power with this announcement that he's going to use the "Pocket Veto" to be able to have a Defense Bill CRUSHED with no chance for the Congress to override the veto!

A "Pocket Veto" is:
SOURCE - Wikipedia

If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, the bill becomes law. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. James Madison became the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812.

But the problem with him calling it a Pocket Veto is that Congress IS in session. Somebody has been opening the meeting, every two or three days, for a brief period. This has been the norm to do this and say that Congress is still in session so that a president doesn't pull a stunt like this!

Bush Gives Pocket Veto to Defense Bill

Bush announced he would scuttle the bill with a "pocket veto" β€” 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 β€” sometimes only seconds long β€” 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."

Talk about ARROGANCE!

The ONLY way he will get his way with this shenanigan is if he can actually prove that the Senate is not in session.

Just something else he pulled out of his "bag of tricks".


Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress indicated: "β€œThe administration would be on weak grounds in court because they would be insisting on what the Framers decidedly rejected: an absolute veto.

Let's hope it doesn't work for him!

[edit on 3/1/08 by Keyhole]

new topics

log in