What is Digg?180 Comments
- Salviati, on 12/31/2007, -8/+129Bush's view doesn't hold water. If he wants to veto the bill, then just VETO it. None of this pocket-veto crap. What he is trying to do here is set the precedent that he can decide when Congress is 'In Session', so he can push through more recess appointments.
Early in his presidency, Bush would announce appointments on long weekends and holidays, because then his appointees wouldn't have to be approved by the Senate, and he could nominate anyone he wanted. Now that the Democrats are in control, they won't let the Congress ever be "Out of Session', because they know Bush will continue to spit on the intentions of the Constitution by continuing this ridiculous practice.
The whole reason for having Recess Appointments was because in the Founder's day, it could often take months for all the Congressmen to arrive at the Capital (in horse-drawn wagons). Pocket Vetoes were designed so that Congress couldn't pass laws when the President was out of town and unable to return in time. These days, there is simply no need for them. - vroom101, on 12/31/2007, -7/+78For the good of this great country, the United States of America, I really, really hope the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate deals with this promptly, plainly, publicly, and decisively.
- vroom101, on 12/31/2007, -5/+45Comment by digger @EntropyMan posted 20 hours ago on December 29, 2007 at http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Senate_in_Pro_Forma_S ... ( digg.com/politics/U_S_Senate_in_Pro_Forma_Session_Congress_IS_NOT_Adjourned?t=11636021#c11648731 ):
What Bush is trying to do: by pretending he doesn't know that Congress is NOT adjourned, he is creating his own reality bubble, which he can use to insulate himself when he does recess appointments next week. If he comes down to him saying Congress is adjourned and them saying it's not, the courts will need to decide "reality," which by then, will be too late.
Bush is playing brinksmanship with the Constitution yet again, and yet again, Democrats may cave rather than show the world that our system of government only works when all branches stick to the rules. If one goes rogue and another goes soft, there's not much left to set things right.
My wish: Congress should hold the President in contempt for sending a knowingly false official communication to Congress -- lying to Congress. He knows they're in pro-forma session. He's just being an ass about it. - Terr01, on 12/31/2007, -4/+43Big thumbs up. Yes, Bush is trying to set a bogus precedent, and yes, it's an archaic practice based on the technological limitations of communication and travel of the time that ought to be updated with a constitutional amendment.
- inactive, on 12/31/2007, -1/+34The House is not Congress. The Senate is not adjourned.
- Terr01, on 12/31/2007, -5/+33US constitution, Article 1, Section 5:
"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
If the Senate (AND/OR) House is in session, then "Congress" is in session. - bowens44, on 12/31/2007, -8/+33This arrogant SOB needs to remember who the hell he works for. He is a public servant , nothing more. What makes him think the he can continue to ignore the will of the people. If anyone ever deserved to spend his life behind bars it's commander Bunny pants.
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/31/2007, -4/+27I really want to see him do this. I really do.
I just want to see the look on his face when he realizes that what he thought was a pocket veto was, in fact, him letting it pass into law without his signature. - CrucifiedEgo, on 12/31/2007, -4/+26So, to quote you:
"If the President neither signs nor returns the bill within the ten-day limit, the bill becomes law, unless the Congress has adjourned in the meantime ... the President, by taking no action on the bill towards the end of a session, exercises a "pocket veto", which Congress may not override."
"the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days."
Sounds like at least one chamber is in session, thereby cancelling that. Of course, that doesn't matter. This president simply makes up his own rules for his country, and expects everyone to simply obey without question. Kinda like... what's his name... that guy, that we hated for awhile... Sadaam something or other. - thinman1189, on 12/31/2007, -3/+22If congress doesn't stand up to this then there really is no hope left.
- felchdonkey, on 12/31/2007, -3/+18It never becomes an abuse of power - it's just the standard system of checks and balances. The president can select appointees that are palatable to the Congress if he's having trouble getting others through.
Similarly, Congress can send any number of bills to the President, but he doesn't HAVE to sign any of them. That's not an abuse of power, either. Congress would just have to send bills that are more palatable to the President in that case.
Recess appointments are not supposed to be an additional weight on the system of checks and balances. Our checks and balances are set up just fine as it is. - vroom101, on 12/31/2007, -1/+15From the article: "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."
See also:
http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Senate_in_Pro_Forma_S ... - sirloin, on 12/31/2007, -2/+14The point of teh law was to keeep both the executive and legislative branch in the loop with laws.
It was to prevent teh legislator from just hiding from the president when he wanted to veto(and remember everything traveled by horse back then, even communications)
and to prevent the president sitting on a popular bill decalring he is still studiing it.
It was not meant to give the president a back door way arround congress.
and it has already been settled by the supreme court in 2 big cases but mainly
wright vs us http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?f ...
where they state that congress IS in session as long as they leave a recordible way to get vetos from the president.
Basically in modern society the president shouldnt be able to ever pocket veto as congress is never more than 10 days away.
but if you read the last line of this ap article, it appears that bush is actually using a real live veto. sans pen. In order for it to be a non pocket veto all he has to do is present his objections to the clerk of the court and then congress still has a chance to override. - Jowsley, on 01/01/2008, -0/+11That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to just do away with recess appointments as well. They're no longer used to address a pressing need while Congress is out of session. Instead they're used to get people appointed that would never stand up to Congressional review.
- Turnar, on 01/01/2008, -0/+11I wish we could see a statement from Pelosi or Reid about this. From the fact that none of the Democratic leadership is taking a stand on this, I think it's safe to assume that they are going to cave as usual.
- damonic, on 12/31/2007, -1/+12I don't think its liberal or conservative to want to protect the Constitution - its just the right thing to do.
- CrucifiedEgo, on 12/31/2007, -4/+15The point isn't that the pocket veto is on the shady side, the point is, there is no pocket veto because the senate has held sessions.
- razor150, on 12/31/2007, -4/+15It is scary how little you know about your own country.
- jetx29, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10I think what thebellmaster1x was getting at is that if he does use a "pocket veto" instead of the real thing, then technically it COULD go to litigation about whether Congress was actually in session. If the federal court finds that they were in session, then it's past Bush's veto period and thus has passed into law, completely bypassing any actual veto chance the president had. (I would find this backfire slightly amusing as well)
- CrucifiedEgo, on 12/31/2007, -5/+13What constitution?
- londubh, on 01/01/2008, -3/+10Yes, Virginia, Bush is a retard. Tell us something we don't know. If Congress isn't technically in session, then why isn't Dubya making recess appointments?
- PhantomBantam, on 01/01/2008, -1/+8Question. When the president vetoes a bill, he sends it back to the house where it originated with his objections. A pocket veto takes advantage of the fact that he cannot send it back to the house where it originated, so congress can't really review the objections.
In the article, Bush says he is sending the bill back to the house. According to this: http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Senate_in_Pro_Forma_S ... only the senate is in session, right? But the president would send the bill back the the house of representatives, so it would still be taking advantage of the fact that no one is there to review the bill. Am I wrong? - vroom101, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7Via U.S. President George W. Bush's "Memorandum of Disapproval" dated December 28, 2007 at http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/200712 ... ( whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071228-5.html ):
". . . The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, 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. . . ." - UnstableMind, on 12/31/2007, -4/+10I think the pro forma sessions are to keep Bush from appointing people into positions. They stay for up to a year once this is done. I don't think it's really about this bill. The one thing in it that Bush disagrees with is the fact that the Iraqi government will have to pay "reparations" to people in Iraq for the misdeeds under Hussein. He may not like it, but he likes our money for his goals more.
- joosebuck, on 12/31/2007, -2/+8commander bunny pants is too ***** funny
- CrucifiedEgo, on 12/31/2007, -2/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congres ...
Congress is a term encompassing both houses. The House of Representatives, and the Senate. "Congress" is still technically in session. - molecool, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Are you kidding me? He's gotten away with practically anything since 2000 - he's going to continue playing King George until January 19 2009. The best we can do is to make things difficult for him. The damage is going to continue and actually get worse in 2008 - he doesn't even pretend to care anymore and just does whatever will secure him the most board seats for the remainder of his miserable life.
- razor150, on 12/31/2007, -4/+10The problem is Bush did veto it, he is just trying to call it a pocket veto. As others have suggested it is probably because he is trying to attempt to give himself the power to determine when Congress is or isn't in session.
- Adelhas, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7One man sessions are an "abuse" necessary to counteract another abuse; that of executive temporary appointments. The spirit of the constitution is clear; its meant to allow the president to act in emergency situations where an office must be filled and congress cannot speak. Back in the days, travel options were different, as was communications. Its never been intended to allow Bush to bypass the wishes of congress by appointing a candidate they don't want, much less to keep an office filled by emergency appointments ad neasaum!
- bwdigg, on 12/31/2007, -4/+10If the dems have any guts they'll let the veto stand. Let him be the one who cut off federral funding. And then not pass another dollar for Iraq until a pullout is announced. Declare victory if he must, but get out of that civil war.
But I don't expect that will happen, based on the way they've chickened out every time so far. - ThinkFr33ly, on 12/31/2007, -8/+13Bush does not care about the law. He believes he is above the law. He is a criminal who deserves to be in prison, not the White House.
If only all the people who believe the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against a tyrannical government would exercise that view and remove this scum ball by force. - jgzman, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5What about if there aren't enough people in the Senate to vote officially? If one house dosn't have a voting majority, or 'quorum' then, since they can't conduct buisness, are they 'out of session?'
- Mysk, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5As much as we would like it to that's not going to happen. The only thing that this government has shown us that it is capable of doing is failing resoundly at everything that it does, or TRIES to do if it ever stops talking long enough to try.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/01/2008, -2/+7"at what point does congress's refusal to confirm any of the sorts of appointments the president wants to make become an abuse of power?"
Never. Congress has no obligation to approve Presidential appointments. - secrity, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7He doesn't give a ***** about The People, he is a lame duck and only cares about his cronies..
- bbear, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5The article quotes bush as saying that he is vetoing the bill. He sent his list of objections to the clerk of the court. If this was a pocket veto he would not be returning the bill with a list of objections. He would just ignore the bill completely.
- mabhatter, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6congress isn't SUPPOSED to be in session all year... they feel the need to do "work" we really don't want them doing.... think "fix it til it's broke". In years past Congress would only meet a few months of the year. Now it's almost all year and we have the president playing games with whether a few PLANNED DAYS off is "in session" or not.
Right now is a scheduled break period for the holidays, but they've kept from banging the "recess" gavel because they don't want the prez using it as an excuse for "emergency" dealings. Of course they're really not emergencies, but congress has somebody go there every few days so the prez can't claim they were away. It's a horrific breech of trust and Congress should be impeaching him for this act alone. - bduddy, on 12/31/2007, -3/+8He has! Do people actually read anymore?
- ErrorS, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5I bitch a lot about the time they take off, sometimes months for no real reason.. but i have to say, I don't blame them for taking off Christmas and New Years.
- OC73, on 01/01/2008, -2/+7Dems pwned again.
- dexter411, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. Thus, he CANNOT return it. Thus, it's a pocket veto, you dunce. That's exactly what it's there for - he pockets it because there's no one there to return it to.
- jgzman, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Petty, but needed. The people Bush has been putting forward are consistently unacceptable for the positions.
Sam Fox - donated $50,000 to help defeat John Kerry. Appointed Ambassador to Belgium in recess, after the senate rejected him. If he didn't buy his position, I'm a billy goat.
Susan Dudley - appointed to oversee federal regulatory policy at the Office of Management and Budget. Had a long career working at the Mercatus Center to oppose regulations on industry, even public-health regulations.
Andrew Biggs - appointed deputy commissioner of Social Security, who is a zealous advocate of privatizing Social Security.
Richard Stickler - appointed to head the federal mine safety agency. Twice rejected by the senate. This gentleman worked for Massey Energy and the former Bethlehem Steel, and reportedly puts industry interests ahead of safety concerns. The United Mine Workers of America have also opposed the appointment.
John Bolten - appointed ambassador to the UN. Senate kicked him back for five months. Do I need to talk about him? Loud, obnoxious, arrogant, immune to reason, unwilling to consider new information, and either woefully ignorant of his history or a bald-faced liar.
Would you say these people have 'conflicts of interests,' or are otherwise unsuitable for the job? - nblsavage, on 12/31/2007, -4/+8That's your opinion, not fact.
- johnpaul191, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5remember that the President is not supposed to be any more powerful than the other branches of government. Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) individually are as powerful as the President.
- JonForTheWin, on 01/01/2008, -2/+6View? VIEW?! ***** YOUR VIEW They are NOT ADJOURNED.
- felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5I'm assuming that you HAVE taken a Constitutional history and law course, so you now have the right to assert nonsensical BS?
Your source is here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%2818940 ...
It's pretty dense, and if you are such a scholar, one would think you'd be able to summarize your point, but I'll try for you.
This article seems to be pointing out that a bill presented with too little time for the President to approve it is a problem, and that Presidents were fearful of going afoul of the Constitution by approving a bill that whose time had expired. It doesn't say anything about the use of this loophole as a legitimate way for a President to veto a bill without explicitly doing so. - PhantomBantam, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Doesn't that link just say the senate is in session? If the idea of a pocket veto is that no one in the house it is sent back to (where it originated) is there to review the objections of the president, then does it matter that only the senate is in session, while the house it originated in was adjourned?
'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."
So, the partial adjournment would prevent its being returned, right? These are genuine questions by the way. - dexter411, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5I cite Harvard Law Review from 1894 rather than blanket assertions by Digg commentators... and it says:
"A greater difficulty lies in the fact that the injunctions 'he shall sign' and 'he shall return' are so connected and dependent that it seems to have been intended that President, at the time of acting upon a bill, should have the option of signing or vetoing it. But if he vetoes the bill, he must return it with his objections to the House in which it originated; and if the House has adjourned, it is no longer possible for him to exercise his right of veto."
= Since the body that originated the bill is adjourned, a pocket veto is valid. - vroom101, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5I hope you don't mind the rephrase: "I wish we could see a statement from Pelosi AND Reid about this."
- Terr01, on 01/01/2008, -2/+6"The Senate is also adjourned, regardless of if that nutjob wants to open the door for one minute every 3 days and then close it."
You may want to look up the difference between "de facto" and "de jure". -
Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is