He's going to try, but I don't think Bush's attempt at a
pocket veto will fly. For one thing, it only works when the Congress is not in session, and the Senate is currently in session. Even if the President closes his eyes and clicks his heels and wishes very, very hard, they're still in session and he can't change that since the
Constitution says Congress is the decider here, not Mr. Bush.
It should be understood that the President possesses no pocket veto power as such. A pocket veto is something the Congress causes. It is the result that occurs when Congress waives its right to reconsider legislation when its adjournment prevents the return of the bill.
CRS ReportThe way I interpret it is that the Congress decides when they can accept a bill from the Executive, since the Constitution states explicitly that Congress makes their own rules. So, in my opinion, the pocket veto doesn't apply unless the Congress says it does.
Regardless, the Senate is in session, thanks to Harry Reid and some east coast Senators who were willing to come to work over break (it's what you get for living that close to the office), and Nancy Pelosi
has the House covered.
When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications -- such as veto messages -- from the White House during the monthlong break.
So Bush's pocket veto threat is as impotent as the Iraqi government,
at whose request he's attempting the veto. Bush's other options are to sign it (he won't) or veto it outright. The President may try to get the
Roadblock Republicans in the Senate to change their votes and not override his veto when the pro forma session is concluded and the full Congress returns, but I don't think that'll happen either. The RR's have been sucking up to him for the past seven years, but some of them are up for reelection in '08, and they're running from him like, well, like people who want to get reelected. Last month, they proved it with their first veto override.
So what's all the fuss about? Well, the bill in question is the Defense spending bill, and it includes some
pretty important legislation. The keystones of the Defense bill are a military pay increase, contractor oversight and improvements in care for wounded troops. It also includes a provision authored by Senator Frank Lautenberg that
protects American victims of terrorists attacks. That's what the Iraqi government and President Bush are objecting to with their veto. Is this really what passes for foreign policy in the Bush administration, allowing a foreign government to determine our defense spending? It's really pretty shocking when you think about it.
What's nuts is that Bush asked for more money. He fairly begged, pleaded and threatened for it. And now, without any warning, he's going to veto this legislation because the Iraqi government asked him to. The only thing I can come up with is that President Bush does not support the troops. He was, after all, against the 3.5% increase from the beginning. Or else he doesn't agree with the Constitution. Really, I can't come up with anything else.
Here's what's in the bill. You tell me. Why is Bush threatening to kill this bill?
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
