Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 12-29-2007, 06:36 AM

He doesn't have the balls to sign the veto of the bill because it would delay pay increases for "the troops". So, he makes it up as he goes along, and the bill becomes law, according to Constitutional procedure, but not in the opinion of "Bush World":

Quote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...1gaXQD8TQMV780
Bush Gives Pocket Veto to Defense Bill

By BEN FELLER – 16 hours ago

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.

Bush announced he would scuttle the bill with a "pocket veto" — 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. <h3></h3> — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.

<h3>The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.</h3>

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."

There he goes, again !
Bush vetoes defense spending bill

Quote:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...pending_b.html
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/ne...pending_b.html

by James Oliphant

This is what happens when you read the fine print.

President Bush Friday vetoed the massive Defense Authorization Act that hit his desk earlier this month because of a provision that would allow Iraqis to sue their government in federal court in the United States for damages over injuries suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime. This didn't sit well with the current Iraqi government which, of course, would have to pay the tab.

"The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States," deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said Friday from the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex. The White House says the provision would imperil Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks (and indeed, even perhaps force the Iraqi government to pull those assets out of the country).

The provision, said a senior administration official, "would expose both the assets of the Development Fund for Iraq and assets of the Central Bank of Iraq to prejudgment attachment, potentially tying up billions in core Iraqi assets while lawyers go about arguing the merits of cases and the reasonableness of the actions in courthouses."

The problem is that the bill also contains a pay raise for those serving in the armed forces. And since the president doesn't have the power to veto line items, the entire bill has to be scratched.

Congress can't fix it because its members are scattered for the holidays, so the bill won't be resubmitted to the president until some time in January. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to pick up the pieces.

They say that if the White House had just informed them that the president had a problem with the bill, they could have fixed it while members were still in Washington. “Despite the administration’s earlier support for the Department of Defense authorization bill, it appears that President Bush plans to veto this legislation, which is crucial to our armed forces and their families,” Reid and Pelosi said in a joint statement.

The White House says it will work to make the pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1. White House officials said that congressional leaders knew the administration was unhappy with the language in the bill, <h2>but conceded that no veto threat was ever made on the issue.</h2>

Plaintiffs have used the federal courts in the past to sue the governments of Iran and Libya, among others, for state-sponsored terrorism. A key sticking point in the negotiations that restored Libya's diplomatic relationship with the United States was the settlement of lawsuits stemming from the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. But because Iraq is now an ally, it becomes a thornier issue.

(Incidentally, the Senate remains technically in session. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has been banging the gavel and holding seven-second sessions each morning in an empty chamber to prevent the White House from making recess appointments. No word yet whether he shouts "I'm the king of the world!" when he does so.)

Posted by Jim Oliphant on December 28, 2007 2:24 PM

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0071228-5.html

Office of the Press Secretary
December 28, 2007

Memorandum of Disapproval

Fact sheet Fact Sheet: National Defense Authorization Act Section 1083: A Danger to Iraq's Progress
Fact sheet Statement by Deputy Press Secretary Scott Stanzel

I am withholding my approval of H.R. 1585, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008," because it would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts and because it would undermine the foreign policy and commercial interests of the United States. .....

......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........

From the president who set a record of the fewest vetoes ever....All it took to reverse his record was the people's choice of electing a democratic majority in the house. Why didn't his legislative liason object to provisions in the important bill before it was passed. Why did provisions in the bill "surprise" them? The conditions discovered at Walter Reed hospital were a "surprise", too. When will supporting the troops become a Bush priority?

Bush is attempting to use this provision to avoid having to actually put his signature to a veto:

Quote:

Article I, section 7, US Constitution:

......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........

Two problems with Bush's strategy...ten days had not passed by, and....congress has not adjourned:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...--+Latest+news
Senate to stay in session to thwart Bush

Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007

WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.
more stories like this

"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. <h3>If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law.</h3> In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed.".....

So, what is next with this....dc_dux, any insight? I think that the white house if relying on the idea that it's machinations are too complicated for voters and "the troops" to try to glean. It is a redux of Ustwo's "example" of the republican house members suddenly changing their votes from nay to yea on the issue of sending Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney, to committee:

Quote:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...tables-re.html
House tied in knots over resolution to impeach Cheney

.....Update at 4:30 p.m. ET: Perhaps we should pause to explain. When most Republicans unexpectedly -- and on orders of GOP leadership, the AP is reporting -- switched sides and voted against tabling the measure, they essentially forced Democrats to keep talking about it on the floor. Tabling the measure would have killed it.

Debate over Cheney's impeachment is in direct opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wishes. She has repeatedly said an impeachment of Cheney or President Bush is off the table. Thus, failing to table this measure is a essentially a jab in Pelosi's ribs.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the AP of the impeachment's supporters. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Update at 4:32 p.m. ET: The House just voted, 218-194, to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That should end today's debate -- but it does keep the resolution at least technically alive.....

<h3>Let us see if this fascinating political manipulation, at the immediate expense of "the troops", attracts the attention of our TFP forum members and if they are ready or willing to focus on the contradictions and post INFORMED agreement or disagreement that, if, as Bush maintains, congress is adjourned, a pocket veto of this bill must be accompanied by attempts to install Bush's recess appointees...</h3>

Will the house and senate finally face down this asshole?