Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Lots to unpack there (0+ / 0-)

    He did two things.  He returned the bill and he issued a statement.  Did the statement go WITH the bill and his objections or was it issued concurrently?

    It seems to me that there are several possibilities and he's mostly just covering his ass.

    You put forth one possibility, that he's pocket vetoing because the House is not in session and thus he is allowed to do that.  If the House is not in session, then returning the bill to the House does nothing and doesn't matter because the House cannot accept it, thus pocket veto.

    But if he is NOT in a position to pocket veto because the House remains in a state of session such that the 10-day requirement would be in effect, then the bill is returned with objections, which would presumably (or at least possibly) qualify as a veto.  Given that, him simply standing up and saying "oh and also, pocket veto" doesn't matter because he's just saying it.  He's under no obligation to declare a pocket veto in the first place if the House is indeed out of session in such a manner to allow for a pocket veto.

    Your question "how difficult is the declaration 'I veto?'" obviously is, in one regard, very simple. It's easy to say, but why say it if there's any question about the consequences of saying so?

    You're correct that this will like have to be settled in court to establish whether a pocket veto is an available option given the circumstances.  And obviously that changes what action, if any, Congress can take.

    So I agree that this obviously raises an issue of law that needs to be settled.  But I think that Bush is essentially saying the same thing here.  That is, that he's not sure what he's allowed to do because existing law is ambiguous, so he's doing both in such a way that only whichever is ultimately deemed appropriate will remain in effect once the point is settled.

    •  I'm still at a loss... (0+ / 0-)

      as to what was wrong with a simple veto?

      There's no question but that he's allowed to just return the bill with a standard veto message. So if he wanted to do both for some reason, why not just do it?

      Why the "memorandum" without the words, "I veto this bill" in it, and claiming to be doing something else at the same time? He certainly didn't feel any need to couch his purported pocket veto claim in any cautionary language. Why then hide the ball on the standard veto language?

      •  I figure it's this (0+ / 0-)

        He'd prefer to pocket veto the thing if he can.  Since he's unsure of the legality there, he wants to make sure that it's at least vetoed straight up.  But if he uses the words "I veto this bill" in the process of returning the bill to the House, then it preempts the pocket veto if it turns out he was able to do it.  I'm not an expert on the intricacies of the relevant law, but I'm assuming that if he was only looking for a straight veto of the bill, he could do that whether the House is in session or not and it would just be pending for all intents and purposes.

        As it stands, he hasn't clearly stated that the bill has been cleanly vetoed, so he retains wiggle room if it turns out he IS able to pocket veto.  But if he's NOT able to pocket veto, then it doesn't become law from Presidential inaction.

      •  Political cover (0+ / 0-)

        it passed overwhelmingly... that it is a pocket veto that the democrats are trying to override illegally will give the congressional Rs a good reason to switch their vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site