Howdy Pilgrim
Welcome to VetZine's Blog
The linking together
of a series of events or ideas
''The Domino Theory''
we have been warned about.
They say
we are at war
Who is the
Enemy ?
Eastasia ?
Westasia ?
Phantasia ?
Daily Dispatches
from the Trenches
email me


Powered by:

Download iPodder, the cross-platform podcast receiver

Who links to me?
E-Mail Me

Friday, October 20, 2006


Did Bush inadvertently "pocket veto" HR 6166 / Military Commissions Act, meaning this is not really a law?

The following was
Posted by kliljedahl on Wed Oct-18-06 11:09 AM:

Original Post: Did Bush inadvertently "pocket veto" HR 6166?

Senate Passed HR 6166 9/28/06

The following rule applies:

The President - the bill is sent to the President for review.

1. A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

2. If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")

3. If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law

Congress Adjourned (09/29/06) before the 10 days. So they will need to have a do over. Now is the time to call, write, email...all of the above to stop this!!!.

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. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden.

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 prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by Congress would "prevent" the President from returning a vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of work. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a short enough time that the Senate could still act with "reasonable promptitude" on the veto. However, a five-month adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases

Posted by tal on Wed Oct-18-06 11:25 AM
In response to Original Post:

Reply #1: interesting but

I'm willing to bet that there was nothing inadvertent about it but is, in fact, part of 'the plan'.

The real question then, is WT*??!!

The following was
Posted by mberst Wed Oct-18-06 03:48 PM
In response to Original Post:

Reply #2:timeline
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. pursuant to the order of September 21, 2006, as modified on September 22, 2006. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. (text of measure as introduced: CR S10033-10044)

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 634.

Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10243-10275)

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S10354-10432)

Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 65 - 34. Record Vote Number: 259. (text: CR S10420-10431)

9/28/2006 7:28pm:
Received in the House.

Message on Senate action sent to the House.

9/28/2006 9:08pm:
Held at the desk.

9/29/2006 11:58am:
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1054. (consideration: CR H7925-7951)

9/29/2006 1:09pm:
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H7951)

9/29/2006 2:32pm:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7959)

9/29/2006 2:47pm:
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 250 - 170 (Roll no. 508). (text: CR H7925-7936)

9/29/2006 2:47pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Cleared for White House.

Presented to President.

Signed by President.

The following was
Posted by kliljedahl on Wed Oct-18-06 04:02 PM
Edited by kliljedahl on Wed Oct-18-06 04:03 PM:

Reply #3: So take it he signed in 7 days (technically)?

I wonder about the delay in sending it to him.

(Note from Vetzine: So do I.
Cleared for White House.

Presented to President.

Signed by President.

Note that callers in to Alex Jones' show have been stating this same exact thing since Thursday, 10/19/16: A caller stated - I'm paraphrasing some of this, but I did take notes: "Re: HR 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006: It's not actually law. If Congress is adjourned, the President has to sign it in 10 days for it to become law or it's a pocket veto. The statute to create a law is: If Congress is in session and the President doesn't sign it within 10 days it automatically becomes a law. If Congress is adjourned and the President doesn't sign it within 10 days it is automatically a pocket veto and it does not become a law. Vetzine: I found this posted numerous places online right after the caller said this on Alex's show. Continuing with comments from caller into Alex's show on Thursday, 10/19/06: If we can get this information out to everyone, they'll have to pass this again or it won't be a law / legal. He also stated he got this information from

End of note from Vetzine.)

Posted by illiteratepresident
Wed Oct-18-06 04:28 PM
In response to Reply #3

Reply #4: Buying time
to get some coverage and squelch the Foley aftermath

Posted by mberst Wed Oct-18-06 04:31 PM
In response to Reply #3

Reply #5:timing
My guess is that they wanted to rush it into law in Congress, get back to campaigning, but they wanted the president to sign it as close to the election as he could for maximum propaganda effect.

They don't care about rules or laws or the Constitution or any of that stuff anyway.

The above came from Progressive Independent. Click here.

Permalink: Click here.

How Our Laws Are Made

Revised and Updated by Charles W. Johnson
Parliamentarian, United States House of Representatives
Presented by Mr. Ney
June 30, 2003

How Our Laws Are Made
Click here.

View completed document titled
How Our Laws Are Made PDF: How Our Laws Are Made


More to come on this asap. Vetzine

posted by Vetzine


Powered By Blogger TM