OT passing the budget, overriding the veto

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 his veto.
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 needed.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unlikely to change by enough to matter tho.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/5/2019 4:02 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

  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 chance ...
--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.[5]
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.[6] 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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 President’s decision if it musters the necessary two–thirds 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 Tyler’s 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 Constitution’s 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 in 1812. \
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
http://constitutionus.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment Controversial adjournment In March 1835, there was controversy on whether Congress could stay in session past the end of the term without adjourning.[13] It was debated on whether the motion to adjourn was valid.[13] 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.[13]
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/Controversy-about-the-final-adjournment-of-the-23rd-Congress/
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Pocket vetoes haven't been a thing much recently but FDR succeeded 263 times and Ike had 108. Your Googler must have failed you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:21:14 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:19:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4

Caving? Have you considered the possibility that she thinks legalizing the DACAs is a good idea.

Because she doens't agree with him? That seems like a recommendation to me. A badge of honor.

They had an offer like that a year ago but Stumpie turned it down. Too late now.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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, repeat.

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. Nuff said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.