HR6166 sloppiness

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

HR6166 sloppiness

Postby 4911 » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://electbarnhill.com/2006/10/24/presidents-inaction-may-equal-pocket-veto/">electbarnhill.com/2006/10...cket-veto/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>"From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: “…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 prevents its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”<br><br>Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto.<br><br>Congress passed 6166 on September 29th, presented it to the President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th. Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had adjourned, thereby rendering it “vetoed” by constitutional standards." <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: HR6166 sloppiness

Postby 1 tal » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:34 pm

<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/h1092.html">congress adjourned on September 29th</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. How does an adjourned Congress even <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>present</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a bill?<br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
1 tal
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: HR6166 sloppiness

Postby rain » Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:00 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>6166 <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>' ... <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>it is the number of a man</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->...'<br><br>(both versions)<br><br>did they just 'fluke' it ?<br><br>but let's play 'it's a fascist dictatorship/martial law'<br><br>yes it is. no it isn't. yes it is. no it isn't. yes. no. yes.....<br><br>"I am the decider"<br><br>'sloppiness' ? is that like 'incompetence' ?<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rain@rigorousintuition>rain</A> at: 11/1/06 7:02 pm<br></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: HR6166 sloppiness

Postby 4911 » Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:06 pm

Thats the icing on the cake. This whole thing, technically, isnt even officially enacted. Hilarious! Just when you thought it couldnt get any more ludicrous. <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: HR6166 sloppiness

Postby DireStrike » Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:29 pm

A pocket veto takes 10(business) days, not a week! If all the facts about dates are presented, it is in fact law.<br><br>However, I don't understand how an adjourned congress can present a bill to the president. <p></p><i></i>
DireStrike
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: NYC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: HR6166 sloppiness

Postby 4911 » Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:37 pm

maybe they emailed it ?<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START |I --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Politics and Stolen Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest