Roll Call! HR 3808. President Obama's Veto Upheld! See how they voted.

[laughingliberal]

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
DEMOCRATIC 16 230 8
REPUBLICAN 169 5 5
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 185 235 13


Full Roll Call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll573.xml

Good news! Look for the Republicans to keep trying to slip this in over and over. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of WS and the banksters. Call your (R) reps and let them know you know how they voted and you'll be watching if it comes up again.

[WillyT]

1. K & R !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[the redcoat]

2. I'm thinking about emailing my Congressman

and saying "I told you so," as I gladly emailed him 2 days ago in support of the veto. Corporate douche bag.

[bluestateguy]

3. Ron Paul voted No

I'm sure it was for libertarian constitutional reasons and had nothing to do with saving people's homes.

[laughingliberal]

5. States' rights is my guess. nt

[ProSense]

4. Shuler and Boren side with Republicans. n/t

[chill_wind]

6. K & R. Thanks for posting the list.

Good pushback by Jennifer Brunner and voters from the get. Good Pres Obama vetoed. (Most) Dems and 5 GOP knew not to go back there again.

GOP Snakes-- we'll be watching.

[mucifer]

7. Lipinski actually voted with the dems nt.

[Bigmack]

8. Has anybody heard any of the defenses of the vote by the Yes voters? nt

[laughingliberal]

10. Dancing with those what brung 'em?

:shrug:

[seafan]

9. Interesting that Tammy Baldwin voted no, when she encouraged a yes vote on April 27, 2010.

Link


Did Baldwin finally see what was at stake with this bill, or was her no vote a "safe" vote when it was seen to be going down to defeat anyway? It's difficult for me to resist cynicism with the majority of these people.

[laughingliberal]

11. Huh! That is interesting. I don't have an anser but it's weird. nt

[SoCalDem]

12. Boner will probably bring it up again when he takes over

and the next time it will happen..count on it.

[laughingliberal]

13. No doubt he'll bring it up. Not sure it'll pass. Conservatives are no happier about this one...

than us. The key on this one is vigilance. Their hope is to pass it quietly while no one is looking. Hopefully, the watchdogs are on the lookout and we'll all be alerted next time they try it.

[blondeatlast]

14. Sa-WEET! I don't need to know how slug-slime Shadegg voted; I already do.

Thank you, brave Democrats, for doing the best for the people!

[EC]

15. And there it is on record

who is for the people and who is for the money machine...I can see the ads now...:evilgrin:

[Dawson Leery]

16. The bluedogs sided with the Republicans and Wall Street!

No one saw that coming. :eyes:

[laughingliberal]

17. Lol! nt

[me b zola]

18. Thanks for posting

This is good news, but to be sure they will try to sneak it in again in another manner. I'm currently trying to get an answer from Congressman Blumenauer (who thankfully voted nay yesterday) of how this ever happened to begin with. How could something this odious get through without a single objection? I think that we should all demand answers and should all work to keep on the heat about this subject to let them know that we are watching and won't let them do this to us w/o repercussions.

[Individualist]

19. K&R

[jeff47]

20. There wasn't a veto to uphold

President Obama used a "pocket veto". It's not an actual veto.

Normally it works like this: Congress passes a bill. The bill is sent to the President to sign. Then the signed bill goes back to Congress to be recorded as a law, or a vetoed bill can come back for an override vote.

Here's the tricky part: If the President doesn't sign or veto the bill within 10 days (excluding Sundays), then it proceeds as if he signed it. But if Congress isn't in session, there's nobody to return the bill to. The bill is left in legal limbo. It can't be recorded as a law. And since it wasn't vetoed, Congress can't vote to override the veto.

Many in Congress hate pocket vetoes. Including Speaker Pelosi. So she schedules override votes for pocket vetoes. She did it back when W tried to pocket veto some bills as well. It's not clear that the vote would have any legal effect, since the whole concept of pocket vetoes isn't spelled out in the Constitution.