Stumpie has said his shutdown could last for iirc 3 months (or was it 6
months) or longer. Other sources say that the primary reason he doesn't
want to give in is fear of looking foolish.
No one seems to mention the obvious, perhaps because it is so obvious,
or perhaps the opposite reason.
All that is needed to end this is for the Congress to pass the budgets,
and after the so-called president vetoes them, for Congress to override
Overriding takes 2/3rds of both houses. Already 13 Republicans voted for
the budgets in the House. That's not very close to the 65 or 70
Two Republican senators have said the bills shoudl be passed, also not
close to 18 or 19 needed to override stumpie's veto.
But things could change.
Apparently Micky has never heard of the "pocket veto" . If I remember
my civics classes correctly , as long as it just site in his pocket with
neither a veto or a pass , congress can't do a damn thing . OK , I
checked , and it's not that simple , but there is still an outside
pocket veto - The Constitution grants the president 10 days to review a
measure passed by the Congress. If the president has not signed the bill
after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature. However, if
Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, the bill does not become law
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:06:23 -0600, Terry Coombs
Yes, I have.
I'm afraid you don't.
This only applies in the last 10, I think it is, days of an odd-numbered
year (or maybe the last 10 days preceding Jan 2 or 3 of an even-numbered
year), because normally if the president does not veto a bill within 10
days, it's too late to veto it and it becomes law. But if a bill is
passed shortly before the end of the legislative year and sent to the
president then, and he can metaphorically hold it in his pocket for less
than 10 days and during that time, the legislative period ends (the
112th Congress, for example), then the bill has never been signed and
also it's too late for the indirect veto to be overridden.
If it worked the way you said, overriding a veto would be impossible
whenever the president decided to make it impossible.
What I thought was interesting this year, the 2nd or 3rd of January, is
that I heard more than once that the Senate was dealing with the
House-passed bill to give Trump what he wanted. I'm sure it failed
like it would have in December, for lack of 60 votes, but what I don't
understand is why there was any need to deal with it at all. Why it
didn't just disappear with the end of 2018 or at least the date in 2019
when the new Congress is called to order.
A pocket veto occurs when a bill fails to become law because the
president does not sign the bill and cannot return the bill to
Congress within a 10-day period because Congress is not in session.
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution 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.
The Constitution limits the president's period for decision on whether
to sign or return any legislation to ten days (not including Sundays)
while the United States Congress is in session. A return veto happens
when the president sends a bill, along with his objections, back to
the house of Congress from which it originated. Congress can override
the veto by a two-thirds vote of both chambers, whereupon the bill
becomes law. If Congress prevents the bill's return by being adjourned
during the 10-day period, and the president does not sign the bill, a
"pocket veto" occurs and the bill does not become law. Congress can
adjourn and designate an agent to receive veto messages and other
communications so that a pocket veto cannot happen, an action
Congresses have routinely taken for decades. If a bill is pocket
vetoed while Congress is out of session, the only way for Congress to
circumvent the pocket veto is to reintroduce the legislation as a new
bill, pass it through both chambers, and present it to the President
again for signature. On the other hand, Congress may override a
regular veto without introducing new legislation through the process
described in the U.S. Constitution. James Madison became the first
president to use the pocket veto in 1812.
Of Presidents throughout United States history, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt had an outstanding number of pocket vetoes, more than anyone
before or after him. During his presidency from 1933-1945 Roosevelt
had vetoed 635 bills, 263 of which were pocket vetoes. All the
presidents after him until George W. Bush had pocket vetoes pass while
they were in office; the one with the most after Roosevelt was Dwight
D. Eisenhower who had 108. George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama both had
no pocket vetoes.[7
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution grants the President the
authority to veto legislation passed by Congress. This authority is
one of the most significant tools the President can employ to prevent
the passage of legislation. Even the threat of a veto can bring about
changes in the content of legislation long before the bill is ever
presented to the President. The Constitution provides the President 10
days (excluding Sundays) to act on legislation or the legislation
automatically becomes law. There are two types of vetoes: the regular
veto and the pocket veto.
The regular veto is a qualified negative veto. The President returns
the unsigned legislation to the originating house of Congress within a
10 day period usually with a memorandum of disapproval or a veto
message. Congress can override the Presidents decision if it musters
the necessary twothirds vote of each house. President George
Washington issued the first regular veto on April 5, 1792. The first
successful congressional override occurred on March 3, 1845, when
Congress overrode President John Tylers veto of S. 66.
The pocket veto is an absolute veto that cannot be overridden. The
veto becomes effective when the President fails to sign a bill after
Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the veto. The
authority of the pocket veto is derived from the Constitutions
Article I, section 7, the Congress by their adjournment prevent its
return, in which case, it shall not be law. Over time, Congress and
the President have clashed over the use of the pocket veto, debating
the term adjournment. The President has attempted to use the pocket
veto during intra- and inter- session adjournments and Congress has
denied this use of the veto. The Legislative Branch, backed by modern
court rulings, asserts that the Executive Branch may only pocket veto
legislation when Congress has adjourned sine die from a session.
President James Madison was the first President to use the pocket veto
This means if Thumper just has a hissy fit and sits on it, it becomes
law, and if he throws it back within 10 "business days" and the senate
gets sick of his BS, they can over-ride with a 2/3 vote in both houses
- and there is NOTHING he can do about it.
He does NOT have to "sign" it.
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:06:23 -0600, Terry Coombs
Sometimes new articles won't load for me, so instead of putting this
after my own article, I have to put it after yours. It is pretty long,
but it covers normal vetoing and normal overriding also.
Article I Section 7 Clause 2
2: 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, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two
thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent,
together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House,
it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses
shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each
House respectively. 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.
3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved
by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of
the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
So it's adjournment that ends the time period. Even 200 years ago I
don't think Congress would voluntarily adjourn if there were a bill
pending within the 10-day period. And in recent years, Republicans in
the Senate wouldn't even take a recess for fear the president would make
a recess appointment. So I think adjjournments only happen at the end
of two years.
Amendment 20/Article 20:
1: The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on
the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives
at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would
have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their
successors shall then begin.
2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such
meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall
by law appoint a different day."
So it's the 3rd of January, and the 2nd was set aside for a travel day,
in the 30's before airplanes were so common.
In March 1835, there was controversy on whether Congress could stay in
session past the end of the term without adjourning. It was debated
on whether the motion to adjourn was valid. Eventually there was an
adjournment. This issue was resolved when the Twentieth Amendment to the
United States Constitution set a specific date and time for the start of
a new session.
The rule requiring adjournment is somewhere in Amendment 20, but I don't
see it. I guess it's implied that if their terms have ended, they've
adjourned, but I still don't see it.
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
And this has nothing to do with the current situation. This pocket veto
discussion was started with a post that said a president could just sit
on a bill for 10 days and thereby somehow defeat it. He can't, the
pocket veto only applies when Congress adjourns and they are in session.
If Trump won't sign a bill without a wall/fence, the only option is for
Congress to override it. For that to happen, you'd have to get 19?
Republicans and all the Democrats in the Senate to vote to override.
I don't see that happening.
The House is going to start passing bills to fund the parts that are
shutdown, one dept at a time. McConnell has said he won't take up
anything that Trump won't sign. This whole thing apparently will have
to go on until there is enough pain for one side or the other to move.
Trump has moved. He's gone from $25 bil, to just $5 bil or less. He's
gone from a concrete wall, to a steel fence being acceptable. It's
the Democrats that won't budge. Despite the fact that Schumer, Hillary,
Biden, and a whole long list of Democrats that are still in Congress
today, voted for 700 miles of high security, double wall, fence in 2006
that the bill said was to form an impenetrable barrier to stop illegal
aliens from crossing.
That lame brain Susan Collins was on a Sunday show today. She proposed
that the Democrats give Trump $2.5 bil for his wall/fence and in return
Trump would legalize 800K DACA! Can you believe that? Talk about caving
and being a complete moron. I never had too much use for her, but this
is dumb by any standard. Trump has offered so much, she's just a dopey
complete sell out, an embarrassment. If she had said they should give
$25 bil in a deal where DACA get legal status, that would be reasonable.
This will have to go on until the pain for one side or the other gets
too high. Looks like a lot of paychecks run out the end of this week.
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 6:23:52 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
It's caving because the Republicans will be getting very little in return
and there is no apparent alternative way to get what they want.
There is no separating DACA from other immigration issues, they are all
related. The Republicans are not going to legalize DACA without securing
the border. To do so, is to buy into the libs shampoo strategy, ie
lather, rinse, repeat. Legalize those that are here, invite more in,
For the specific reason I just outlined.
That seems like a recommendation to
Interesting, and why would that be? Why would what was acceptable to
Democrats a year ago, now be unacceptable? You Democrats would rather
see DACA people screwed, the govt shutdown, and stick it to Trump.
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 4:45:11 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Always the Republicans, the Republicans, the Republicans. WTF about the
DEMOCRATS? Why won't they compromise? Trump isn't asking for $25 bil.
He's come down to just $5 bil and he'd accept less. He's compromised,
showed willingness to move. The Democrats?
ZERO, ZERO, ZERO. And this after two years! The amount Trump is asking
for is just .1% of the freaking budget! It's not about the money,
Clearly it's the Democrats here
who are doing this for purely partisan purposes. The hypocrites were in
favor of a double fence, to be designed so that it would stop all illegal
aliens from breaching it. That was in 2006, Hillary and Schumer voted
for it. Now? Now they are the party of open borders and screwing Trump.
After seeing this, I have less and less sympathy for the DACA too. If the
SC rules that Trump can rescind DACA, which it likely will and Trump
starts deporting them because the DEMOCRATS are intransigent and don't
give a fuck, so be it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.