SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (114039)10/7/2010 9:01:59 PM
From: John Metcalf5 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) of 116555
 
I don't understand the "pocket veto" story. This is from an AP news blurb: "The White House said Thursday it is sending the bill back to Congress for revisions, and that the administration would work with lawmakers on it." That would be a proper Constitutional veto, as described in Article I, Section 7.

The "pocket veto" idea has already been challenged, because Congress is not actually adjourned. They have scheduled "pro-forma" sessions twice per week to prevent the President from making recess appointments, because they are, uhh, not really adjourned.

If Obama is serious, he should just veto the bill, return it to Congress with his objections, and see if each house has a two-thirds majority to override his veto. As a distrustful paranoid in re: Congress, I suspect that the "pocket veto"/muddied waters concept is a way to let the legislation become law while everyone can say they fought it.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News