What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
265 Comments
- Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -13/+168FTA:
"Just impeach him already." If congress has no power under Bush, and if Bush sets aside the Constitution if and when he pleases, then the only thing left to do to protect Congress and the Constitution is get rid of Bush."
Is there no end to this man's hubris? - modnar, on 12/30/2007, -11/+118I thought 37,000 copies of the Constitution were sent to Bush for Christmas? Maybe he needs a few more.
- wtfmate112, on 12/30/2007, -21/+114***** Bush.
- Tex, on 07/28/2008, -13/+85This is a Constitutionally and legally significant story, and should be in every news organization's front page headlines right now.
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/30/2007, -2/+66"Mr. Bush, please get out of the chair. You haven't been the President for four days, now."
"NO! Gimme mah armrest back, terrorist!" - cg4et, on 12/30/2007, -5/+56Impeach Cheney First!
- Devotia, on 12/30/2007, -6/+55The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us...
- wonderchemist, on 12/30/2007, -5/+53I dunno if W can get past the preamble, since its a pretty long sentence.
- jmpeagle, on 12/30/2007, -4/+49what makes you think he would reognize an impeachment?
- inactive, on 12/30/2007, -5/+43"Is there no end to this man's hubris?" In a word, no.
- DeviantDragon, on 12/30/2007, -6/+32It's not significant yet because Bush saying means nothing. It'll be significant if the administration acts on it and actually acts as if a pocket veto has occurred. Otherwise, Bush simply could've misspoken or is outright ignorant. Perhaps he doesn't even know what one is and just wanted to drop a "grown-up" sounding word.
- DontGiveADamn, on 12/30/2007, -1/+26The hell with impeachment. The next administration should turn him over to an international tribunal to face charges of war crimes. When I think about all the lives lost because of what he did it makes me sick. I would love to see this monster convicted and executed for his crimes.
- Spuy767, on 12/30/2007, -18/+42This is not entirely accurate. And the source is not exactly the most politically unbiased.
- ohiomama, on 12/30/2007, -2/+25from what i understand, they're holding "sessions" to prevent bush from making recess appointments. it's not like he's exactly earned their trust.
- EntropyMan, on 12/30/2007, -2/+21No, it's significant because the next step is for Bush to say, "If it's not a pocket veto, then Congress can vote to override. Congress can't vote to override, so they must not be in session. If they're not in session, here are my next 10 recess appointments. Heh."
He's calling their bluff about the pro-forma sessions by calling it a pocket veto. - crombat, on 12/30/2007, -1/+19here's the memorandum, in case you want to read it for yourselves:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20 ... - consonance, on 12/30/2007, -2/+18The Senate is currently in session (but not the House) through the use of a loophole that allows them to be in session if the Senate is opened and closed once every three days. The Senate is using a procedural loophole to stop Bush from using another loophole to make recess appointments that don't need to be ratified.
- Lutremi, on 12/30/2007, -10/+25My veto! MINE!
- VieRelative, on 12/30/2007, -3/+18http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20 ...
Bush: "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."
In other words, bush means to veto the bill. But due to the unclear status of whether congress is in session or not he covered all his bases by both declaring it a "pocket veto" and a regular veto. Congress can then decide for itself whether it is in session or not, but the bill is vetoed either way. - jonshipman, on 12/30/2007, -1/+16didn't Nintendo send him Brain Age and a DS last year?
Maybe this year they should have gotten him Big Brain Academy... unfortunately Wiis were sold out everywhere. - catbeller, on 12/30/2007, -2/+17We are capable of multitasking.
- Timsher, on 12/30/2007, -2/+16"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."
I don't read anywhere in there that the president must declare his intentions or that if he does that will be legally binding... Seems that this is a lot of fuss about something that's nothing more than a political misstatement. - thebellmaster1x, on 12/30/2007, -2/+14I see what you did there,
but it wasn't very funny. - richgustavson, on 12/30/2007, -5/+16I thought if Congress is in session and the president does not take action on a bill (ie either sign or veto) then the bill becomes law? So what is the problem if he doesn't sign it?
- egbert, on 12/30/2007, -10/+20This is inaccurate... Congress is not in session. The senate is still in session to prevent recess appointmentds
- EntropyMan, on 12/30/2007, -2/+12MillenniumX, I don't think power grab is the right word for it. It's an attempt to put a rabid pitt bull on a leash. It will fail, but it might slow down his rampant power grabs for a few weeks.
The only thing that would really work is impeachment and removal from office, which won't happen unless Congressional Republicans grow a conscience and Democrats grow a spine. - JHB800, on 12/30/2007, -2/+12No. You're wrong. He can't make recess appointments because the Senate IS in session. The fact that the house is not means that Congress is not in session as a whole, but because the Senate is the body that approves presidential appointees and is still in session, he cannot make any recess appointments.
- VeritasAequitas, on 12/30/2007, -3/+12If you read it I especially like the statement that refers to the effect of this bill being a "freeze" on Iraq's economy, and how that would effect the world's view on the U.S. as being a safe place to invest. Apparently Mr. Bush has not been paying attention to the value of the dollar in the last year and a half. His administration has already screwed us on that. That whole release is B.S. it effectively says the same thing over and over again. This will hurt Iraq economy, we are the only thing holding it together. I for one don't give a *****, he should be more concerned with OUR economy.
- Skab, on 12/30/2007, -2/+11but the link to the memorandum states exactly what he's saying, regardless of his bias. he's doing something he shouldnt have to the power to do.
- simplicityiskey, on 12/30/2007, -3/+12You've just explained while this story is completely meaningless. The only way a "pocket veto" works is if Congress is not in session. By simply refusing to sign it, as you said, it will become law if Congress remains in session. If Congress should adjourn before the President signs it, then it is effectively "pocket vetoed" because he did not actually veto it, but merely waited on Congress to adjourn.
- Tenlow, on 12/30/2007, -2/+11That's it, I'm sending the constitution to bush as a gorillagram. At least that way he'd be entertained.
- Dhalsim007, on 12/30/2007, -0/+8A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking, and is a process of indirect rejection. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:
"... 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. "
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 [1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto - l1324523, on 12/30/2007, -6/+14The people of the United States did not actually vote for Bush in 2000, the electoral college did. He lost the popular vote.
- MortalynFlux, on 12/30/2007, -2/+10I'm surprised he still acknowledges the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and case law.
- clickmyface, on 12/30/2007, -1/+9Don't both houses have to approve it?
- NonServium, on 12/30/2007, -0/+8Why on Earth would you call such proven lying news agencies legitimate? These organizations have a very obvious agenda and a history of simply fabricating whatever alleged facts they can make up to try and convince people to adopt the views they want them to. CNN? AP? AFP? BBC? FOX? I'd put more faith in a magic 8 ball to be accurate than the crap they spew. "Legitimate" my foot. There are no legitimate news sources.
- jgzman, on 12/30/2007, -1/+9The president has no 'right' to recess appointments. He has the ability to do so, if it becomes necessary. Congress has a duty to approve or deny appointments. It's part of their job. By waiting for congress to be out of session, and then pushing through people who are blatantly unacceptable to the congress, he is exploiting the system.
If, however, you insist on the technicalities, then be aware that what Harry Reid 'dreamed up' is also their 'right,' to be in session when they desire. It's in the constitution as well. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/30/2007, -1/+8They screen that sort of mail.
That's just like laws that require protests be pre-scheduled. All he does is leave town when they're underway. - thebellmaster1x, on 12/30/2007, -4/+11How does that make them sham sessions? They ARE in session, are they not? They're real sessions. If he doesn't like them, tough luck.
- Brendan371, on 12/30/2007, -0/+7sit still for this
- clickmyface, on 12/30/2007, -1/+8The statement, provided by Crombat below, specifically references "The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)" as legal precedence behind the decision.
It all comes down to the pocket veto definition of "adjournment." From U.S. 655, this may be what they are using" 11. The "House" to which the bill is to be returned is a House in session -- sitting in an organized capacity for the transaction of business and having authority to receive the return, enter the President's objections on its journal, and proceed to reconsider the bill; and no return can be made to the House when it is not in session as a collective body and its members are dispersed. P. 682. "
sources: http://supreme.justia.com/us/279/655/case.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20 ... - GhostyBoy, on 12/30/2007, -10/+17I don't really believe he was ever voted in. I think the president is an impostor. And a criminal. And a traitor.
- jbird32275, on 12/30/2007, -3/+10Maybe they should have sent someone to read it to him
- DivisibleByZero, on 12/30/2007, -0/+6Article 1, Section 7:
"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 he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated," - pintomp3, on 12/30/2007, -2/+8it's more like not wanting to leave the house unattended (pun intended) while a known thief is lurking.
- merwin, on 12/30/2007, -3/+9Really? I was under the impression that both houses have separate bills and they get merged in conference. Stupid me.
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 12/30/2007, -1/+7More Rethug reality creation from the Rove school. Here's a pocket veto that he did realize, thankfully...and one people don't seem to be too aware of: http://www.democratictalkradio.com/wordpress/?p=18 ... and http://www.rense.com/general74/pass.htm for good measure...
- Icyfenix, on 12/30/2007, -1/+7"I am the Senate" -Palpatine
- domino42, on 12/30/2007, -3/+9Buried this story, Just wanted to post why:
The bill in question will expire 12/31/2007. The outcome of the pocket veto is up in the air until then. If he does not sign it and congress is in session then it will become a law. If congress is out of session then this pocket veto will work.
What are the chances that your congressmen will work on new years eve? - MortalynFlux, on 12/30/2007, -0/+6Whoever dug me down obviously didn't READ the memorandum. Read it first, then you know why I wrote what I wrote. He cited a U.S. Supreme Court case and the U.S. Constitution in a matter of procedure, thereby acknowledging the authority of both. Whether he does this selectively is a different matter, but in this case, he acknowledged both.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 265 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is