Posted on 10/07/2010 2:20:33 PM PDT by daniel885
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)
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.
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.
You’re absolutely right - I heard about the other day (and promptly forgot) in the context of recess appointments.
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 He KNOWS it so feels like he can do what ever he likes because the constitution is already invalidated, and no longer in effect.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.
Very interesting...this...and the subject in the pocket veto. Thanks to all posters.
Hmm....another case for Levin and Landmark Legal?
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.
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.
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.