Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush claims Senate's pro forma sessions don't count (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is the text of his Memorandum on-line? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind

    It seems to me that as long as the Memorandum contained his objections to the bill, and it was returned to the originating house, he has vetoed it.

    Time Magazine's website (which is the gospel truth of all that happens in Washington Politics) says he vetoed it (which is probably something he was trying to avoid).

    "If we outlaw everything some people find offensive, there wouldn't even be a Texas in the first place." - Cindy Campos, Lifeguard

    by jandrewmorrison on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:14:20 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Memorandum is here: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rincewind, jandrewmorrison

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

      That's a reasonable interpretation of his intent. The monkey wrench in the works is that it doesn't say, "I'm vetoing this bill."

      The only mention of the veto comes in his claim that the pocket veto obtains, even though a pocket veto would by definition not be returned with objections.

      •  from the memo (0+ / 0-)

        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.

        Seems like he complied with the constitution, but was confused because there was nobody there when he went to return the bill.

        "If we outlaw everything some people find offensive, there wouldn't even be a Texas in the first place." - Cindy Campos, Lifeguard

        by jandrewmorrison on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:43:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Clerk was there. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayBat, jandrewmorrison

          He says so. And that's important, because the case law says if the Congress can designate an agent to receive messages, that should be enough to eliminate the triggering of a pocket veto.

          He certainly crafted the memo in a way that makes it as confusing as possible, no doubt about that.

          He appears to comply with the minimum requirements of the Constitution with respect to return and setting forth objections. And the Constitution doesn't say he has to say it's a veto. But one likely question should be whether or not that requirement is implied. Otherwise, we'd have to ask what to do with a bill that got returned with a list of objections, but also with a message that said, "This is great!"

          Would that be a veto? I don't know.

          He complied with the return and listing of objections, but also indicated that this was meant to indicate his effecting of a pocket veto.

          So that's another question. What kind of veto is it? The kind he actually said he meant it to be? Or the kind he sort of complied with the rules for?

          •  Either way, Bush vetoed money for our troops. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind, JanL

            I think focusing on which type of veto he used, or how the language that he used could be interpreted in a number of ways, or questions as to his knowledge of constitutional procedure are all missing the point.

            Bush vetoed his authority to spend the money appropriated to our troops.

            Now if he tries to spend the money prior to another appropriations bill coming out, then we will have a constitutional crisis.

            The only problem with what happened today is that the White House may have to file suit to try to stop Nancy Pelosi from bringing the returned bill to the floor to attempt to override this veto.

            The fact that he is claiming a "pocket veto" 8 days after he got the bill shows how insincere Bush is in making this claim that this is an "unusual type" of veto which is different than the others.

            "If we outlaw everything some people find offensive, there wouldn't even be a Texas in the first place." - Cindy Campos, Lifeguard

            by jandrewmorrison on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 07:01:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you're right... (0+ / 0-)

              about why he claimed to be using the pocket veto, not that it'll do him much good in the PR game.

              But I wonder whether he might not also claim the authority to simply spend the appropriated money without the authorizing bill, and then claim he's the hero who "cut through all the red tape" and gave the troops a raise while Congress dithered over the technicalities.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (163)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (81)
  • Bernie Sanders (63)
  • Freddie Gray (59)
  • Civil Rights (52)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (37)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (35)
  • Law (30)
  • 2016 (30)
  • Racism (30)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Politics (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site