Is Bush's Pocket Veto Legal?
by D. Cupples | President Bush has attempted to use a pocket veto to reject the Defense Authorization Act, which includes not only $800+ billion in funding but also better oversight of contractors and a higher pay raise for our troops than they had been scheduled to get.
Why is the Commander in Chief willing to deny our troops their additional raise and clamp down on contractors? The Associated Press reports:
"President Bush on Friday used a 'pocket veto' to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era....
"The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs....
"Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while vacationing at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.
"The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval." (AP)
One crucial question is whether Congress is or isn't in session. If it is in session, than the president's pocket veto would be invalid. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid commented:
"We understand that the President is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed." (Pelosi blog)
Hmmm. Hubris Sonic at the Group News Blog commented:
"The House and Senate have been holding pro forma sessions, with people like Jim Webb heading over the the chamber to hold short session so that congress doesn't have to recess. To stop
CheneyBush from appointing more worthless GOP scumbag donors to jobs in government.
"Here is the thing, if we concede that he has actually pocket vetoed this bill than he has effectively established that congress is not in session. Guess what comes next?"
Memeorandum has other bloggers' commentary:
Washington Monthly, The Gavel, Greatscat!, Hullabaloo, Emptywheel, Flopping Aces and Daily Pundit
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Webb Helps Senate Block Recess Appointments
* U.S. Financial Condition has "Deteriorated Dramatically since 2000"
* High Cost of Private Contractors
* Pattern of Wasted Tax Dollars Abroad and at Home
* Whatever happened to the 190,000 Missing Weapons?
I have read elsewhere (Digby? FDL?) that a close reading of the Constitution says that Bush would have to return the bill to body where it originated and, since it's an appropriations bill, that's the House-- which is not in session.
By contrast, the Senate votes on nominees, and it is in session.
So, the pocket veto probably is technically legal. Slimy, but this is Bush we are talking about.
Posted by: Charles | December 29, 2007 at 10:55 PM