Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Pocket Veto Illegal and Would Set Dangerous Precedent

Posted on 10/07/2010 2:20:33 PM PDT by daniel885

Obama's pocket veto today is a dangerous precdent where Obama is basically asserting the right to an absolute veto (without the power to override) even when Congress is in session. Pocket vetoes can only be done when Congress isn't in session. But go to www.senate.gov. The Senate will convene tomorrow morning at 11:30 and also just convened on Tuesday.

Here's what the Constitution says...

"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, u...nless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law."

A "pocket veto" effectively kills the legislation. It's an absolute veto without the power to override. Presidents have long used this but this is the first time I've heard of a President asserting this while Congress is in session. (Note the text of the Constitution says "THEIR adjournment" meaning both houses must adjourn for Congress to be considered adjourned).

To stop pocket vetoes Congress has from time to time appointed officials to receive communications from the President but Presidents usually don't recognize that and insist on Congress being in session (to preserve the right of a pocket veto). In this case though, there's no ambiguity. Congress is in session.

Robert Gibbs was asked how The President can pocket veto the bill when the Senate was still in session. He sort of dismissed this, as Democrats have been doing a lot the last few years when challenged on the Constitution, and said "the President certainly has the constitutional power to do that, and that is what he's exercising."

So Obama is trying to create a precedent where he can veto a bill without recourse... just ahead of new Republican majorities. He's subverting our Constitution!


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: obamapocketveto

1 posted on 10/07/2010 2:20:36 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: daniel885; Congressman Billybob

agreed. That should become a law in that instance.


2 posted on 10/07/2010 2:23:27 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Is there a specific bill he is vetoing? I admit to not completely understanding the pocket veto. My apologies.


3 posted on 10/07/2010 2:23:39 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Utopia is being foisted on Americans for their own good.-- J. Robert Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Told you so.

And the stupid Republicans will whine and file a complaint. And maybe 5 years from now the SC will rule his actions unconstitutional. In the meantime, the repercussions of his illegal actions will have done their damage.

This is why I believe that the SC is not going to be our salvation from ObamaCare, regardless of how they rule years down the road. It will be far too late to matter. And the Democrats will ignore court orders anyway, because there is never a downside for them to do that.


4 posted on 10/07/2010 2:26:17 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

Most people haven’t heard of the “pocket veto” that is why we’ve got to mobilize quickly to learn and educate others why what he’s doing is so scary.

The left has been complaining all day about a bill that nobody noticed that passed both houses by voice vote that requires one state to recognize the notorized documents from another state. Well the leftists are worried that will speed up foreclosures and people who haven’t been paying for homes will be kicked out and their free ride will end sooner. So Obama announced he’s going to “pocket veto” it today See the Huffington Post outcry here if you want: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-pocket-veto-foreclosures_n_753987.html.

Read more about a pocket veto on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto

Basically it makes the bill disappear and Congress doesn’t have the ability to try and override it (or put members on the spot whether they support overriding it). It’s only supposed to happen when Congress isn’t in session... but Congress is in session, formally at least.


5 posted on 10/07/2010 2:29:45 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Congress was referred to as a plural in the times of the Founding. We speak of it as a singular but the Founders did not. Since “Congress” cannot be considered to be sitting unless both Houses are sitting it would be effectively adjourned if one is not. Presumably one House could still be in session even if Congress is not.

If Obama does not sign the bill within ten day it will be law. But we can, no doubt, expect all the dirty tricks and questionable acts he can come up with.


6 posted on 10/07/2010 2:29:53 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

FYI


7 posted on 10/07/2010 2:30:21 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Not according to Wright v United States. It basically takes the same assumption as you are making but reverses it. Congress IS in session unless both houses adjourn.

They wrote in reference to a similar scenerio:

“The Congress’ did not adjourn. The Senate alone was in recess. The Constitution creates and defines ‘the Congress.’ It consists ‘of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ Article 1, § 1. The Senate is not ‘the Congress.”

So if only one half of Congress adjourns but the other has not then Congress as a whole has not adjourned. At least that’s my understanding of it. If I’m wrong, please do explain. I’m not a lawyer, that’s why I’m throwing this out there.


8 posted on 10/07/2010 2:35:25 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

The senate and the house will have both adjourned before the ten days are up.


9 posted on 10/07/2010 2:36:43 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Thank you for the information and links.


10 posted on 10/07/2010 2:38:05 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Utopia is being foisted on Americans for their own good.-- J. Robert Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stormer

No it won’t. The Senate never passed an adjournment resolution. It is operating under a order of the Senate to convene every three days in pro-forma sessions under a bi-partisan agreement to keep the Senate technically in session to prevent recess appointments. The Senate deliberately took action to not adjourn.


11 posted on 10/07/2010 2:38:43 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Congress was referred to as a plural in the times of the Founding. We speak of it as a singular but the Founders did not. Since “Congress” cannot be considered to be sitting unless both Houses are sitting it would be effectively adjourned if one is not. Presumably one House could still be in session even if Congress is not.

Or was it plural like the Brits would say "The government are..." or "The company are..." where we would use the singular form "is". Congress may have been plural in the sense that it is made of 535 individuals, not that it has two houses.

12 posted on 10/07/2010 2:40:20 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Grblb blabt unt mipt speeb!! Oot piffoo blaboo...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
American Constitutional laws don't apply to Kenyan usurpers.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

13 posted on 10/07/2010 2:40:51 PM PDT by The Comedian ("Progressive" is a code word for "Pending nitrogen cycle contributor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

National Journal has now written an article about it... talking about a potential constitutional showdown on the issue. But folks, why wouldn’t Obama just outright veto the bill? What’s the motive behind it... that’s the point. He is asserting a power ahead of new Republican majorities that he hopes to use against them to make their bills vanish as if they never passed.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20101007_9881.php


14 posted on 10/07/2010 2:41:16 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
He's subverting our Constitution!

This is new?

15 posted on 10/07/2010 2:45:07 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
Presidents have long used this but this is the first time I've heard of a President asserting this while Congress is in session.

Um..... the pocket veto can only be asserted while Congress is in session -- they can't present the president with a bill unless they're in session.

The president has 10 days to sign or veto. There's nothing saying he can't run out the clock for 9 days.

16 posted on 10/07/2010 2:49:41 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

What? Pocket vetoes have long been used legitimately. Reagan issued 39 of them! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto

Congress passes a bill and sends it to the President and then adjourns. Then the President doesn’t sign it and it doesn’t become law because Congress wasn’t in session.

The problem in this case is Congress hasn’t adjourned because the Senate is still in session and plans to be in session until the Lame Duck session in order to prevent recess appointments under a bi-partisan agreement. That same method to prevent a recess appointment should also prevent a pocket veto.


17 posted on 10/07/2010 2:52:56 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

As he is not qualified to serve, Obama’s entire presidency is a subversion of our constitution.


18 posted on 10/07/2010 2:54:14 PM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

If Congress is in session and the President doesn’t sign the bill or veto it, the bill becomes law. So no, pocket vetoes can only be used when Congress is NOT in session (which it is now).

From the Constitution (not that it means anything anymore):
“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.”


19 posted on 10/07/2010 2:54:22 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


20 posted on 10/07/2010 3:07:30 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
But folks, why wouldn’t Obama just outright veto the bill?

Because then he'd have to take a stand, silly! The Pocket Veto is the same as voting present,something infinitely comfortable to our _resident. Sounds like he couldn't even do that right, however.

ADAF (another day, another fail)

21 posted on 10/07/2010 3:14:03 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("It's amazing, A man who has such large ears could be so tone deaf" Rush Limbaugh 9/8/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

THE SENATE IS IN SESSION ... From thomas.gov:

Floor Schedule

Friday, Oct 08, 2010

11:30 a.m.: Convene for a pro forma session.

Previous Meeting

Tuesday, Oct 05, 2010

The Senate convened at 11:00 a.m. for a pro forma session.


22 posted on 10/07/2010 3:17:35 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("It's amazing, A man who has such large ears could be so tone deaf" Rush Limbaugh 9/8/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Exactly. If the Senate is in session and the President doesn’t sign (or veto, aka “return”) a bill... It becomes law automatically without his signature. So he can’t pocket veto the bill.


23 posted on 10/07/2010 3:21:45 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

You’re absolutely right - I heard about the other day (and promptly forgot) in the context of recess appointments.


24 posted on 10/07/2010 4:03:32 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

FUBO. Congress is still in session. Can’t do a Pocket Veto with congress in session you NUB.

Jeeez. The cretin breaks the constitution with his very presence. He KNOWS it so feels like he can do what ever he likes because the constitution is already invalidated, and no longer in effect. In a sense he might be right. But that’s just another good reason to put the bastard on trial for Treason.


25 posted on 10/07/2010 5:30:10 PM PDT by Danae (Analnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Very interesting...this...and the subject in the pocket veto. Thanks to all posters.


26 posted on 10/07/2010 5:55:02 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Hmm....another case for Levin and Landmark Legal?


27 posted on 10/07/2010 8:13:55 PM PDT by bushwon ("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

My thinking is that “Congress” cannot act unless both Houses are in session.

The Constitution limits the amount of time which one house can adjourn without the permission of the other to three days. So this issue is of interest only for three days.


28 posted on 10/07/2010 10:04:05 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

I don’t really know why it was referred to that way. However, they were very loose in those days wrt spelling, grammar and punctuation. Commas were virtually unknown.


29 posted on 10/07/2010 10:06:12 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson