https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm
"The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint
resolution and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The
president has ten days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by
Congress. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the
legislation to the house in which it originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the veto. This veto can be overridden only
by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House. If this occurs,
the bill becomes law over the President's objections. A pocket veto
occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day period. The president
cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's decision not to sign
the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does not have the
opportunity to override."
A few things here:
(1)
Can Congress re-pass, with no wording at all, a bill that had previously
been vetoed? I.e. could they just keep re-passing a bill that POTUS has explicitly signed a veto, hoping he will eventually cave and sign it? Or maybe at the time of the first passing of it, POTUS said "no, because of
XYZ happening right now" but then they wait a month and now XYZ is no
longer happening and they're hoping now POTUS will be more agreeable?
Or, if it was a pocket veto, basically pass it again when they re-convene?
(2)
Assuming they can re-pass it as-is, but with some qualifiers, if they
passed it, say, on Aug 1st and then left town on Aug 8th (for Labor
Day), when they got back on Sept 6th, could they re-pass it on Sept
10th? If they can't re-pass it as-is at any time, what about if they
passed it on Dec 20th and the new congress convenes on Jan 3rd? Can the
NEW congress then pass it on Jan 5th as-is?
(3)
If they can't re-pass it as-is at all, how much changes need to be in it
to allow them to do so? I.e. let's say it was a bill to take 1,000,000
acres of land and create a national park and the bill ran 100 pages
(they were tired that day and didn't want to get overly wordy, ya know?) Would having the exact same text except that it's now 999,999 acres (and
a change to the text for the specifications of the boundary to fit the
new size) be enough of a change?
https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm
"The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint resolution >and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The president has ten >days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by Congress. A regular veto >occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it >originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the veto. >This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate
and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's >objections. A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day >period. The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's >decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does not >have the opportunity to override."
A few things here:
(1)
Can Congress re-pass, with no wording at all, a bill that had previously
been vetoed? I.e. could they just keep re-passing a bill that POTUS has >explicitly signed a veto, hoping he will eventually cave and sign it? Or >maybe at the time of the first passing of it, POTUS said "no, because of
XYZ happening right now" but then they wait a month and now XYZ is no
longer happening and they're hoping now POTUS will be more agreeable? Or,
if it was a pocket veto, basically pass it again when they re-convene?
(2)
Assuming they can re-pass it as-is, but with some qualifiers, if they
passed it, say, on Aug 1st and then left town on Aug 8th (for Labor Day), >when they got back on Sept 6th, could they re-pass it on Sept 10th? If they >can't re-pass it as-is at any time, what about if they passed it on Dec
20th and the new congress convenes on Jan 3rd? Can the NEW congress then
pass it on Jan 5th as-is?
(3)
If they can't re-pass it as-is at all, how much changes need to be in it to >allow them to do so? I.e. let's say it was a bill to take 1,000,000 acres
of land and create a national park and the bill ran 100 pages (they were >tired that day and didn't want to get overly wordy, ya know?) Would having >the exact same text except that it's now 999,999 acres (and a change to the >text for the specifications of the boundary to fit the new size) be enough
of a change?
"Mike Anderson" wrote in message news:stts8k$dkn$1...@dont-email.me...
https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm
"The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint resolution >and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The president has ten >days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by Congress. A regular veto >occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it >originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the veto. >This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate >and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's >objections. A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day >period. The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's >decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does not >have the opportunity to override."
A few things here:
(1)
Can Congress re-pass, with no wording at all, a bill that had previously >been vetoed? I.e. could they just keep re-passing a bill that POTUS has >explicitly signed a veto, hoping he will eventually cave and sign it? Or >maybe at the time of the first passing of it, POTUS said "no, because of >XYZ happening right now" but then they wait a month and now XYZ is no >longer happening and they're hoping now POTUS will be more agreeable? Or, >if it was a pocket veto, basically pass it again when they re-convene?
(2)
Assuming they can re-pass it as-is, but with some qualifiers, if they >passed it, say, on Aug 1st and then left town on Aug 8th (for Labor Day), >when they got back on Sept 6th, could they re-pass it on Sept 10th? If they >can't re-pass it as-is at any time, what about if they passed it on Dec >20th and the new congress convenes on Jan 3rd? Can the NEW congress then >pass it on Jan 5th as-is?
(3)
If they can't re-pass it as-is at all, how much changes need to be in it to >allow them to do so? I.e. let's say it was a bill to take 1,000,000 acres >of land and create a national park and the bill ran 100 pages (they were >tired that day and didn't want to get overly wordy, ya know?) Would having >the exact same text except that it's now 999,999 acres (and a change to the >text for the specifications of the boundary to fit the new size) be enough >of a change?
They can absolutely keep passing the same bill over and over, but why would they? If they know they don't have the votes, they would just open
themselves up to criticism as a do-nothing Congress and for wasting taxpayer money. Just remember that every Congressperson who repeatedly casts a
vote on legislation they know won't be signed has to face re-election and explain to voters why he or she indulged in such a fruitless effort. You do it once or twice to get on the record and to attempt to over-ride the president's veto, but after that you move onto other things.
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:59:01 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
"Mike Anderson" wrote in message news:stts8k$dkn$1...@dont-email.me...
They can absolutely keep passing the same bill over and over, but why
https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm
"The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint
resolution
and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The president has
ten
days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by Congress. A regular
veto
occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which
it
originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the
veto.
This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate
and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's
objections. A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the
ten-day
period. The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The
president's
decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does
not
have the opportunity to override."
A few things here:
(1)
Can Congress re-pass, with no wording at all, a bill that had previously
been vetoed? I.e. could they just keep re-passing a bill that POTUS has
explicitly signed a veto, hoping he will eventually cave and sign it? Or
maybe at the time of the first passing of it, POTUS said "no, because of
XYZ happening right now" but then they wait a month and now XYZ is no
longer happening and they're hoping now POTUS will be more agreeable?
Or,
if it was a pocket veto, basically pass it again when they re-convene?
(2)
Assuming they can re-pass it as-is, but with some qualifiers, if they
passed it, say, on Aug 1st and then left town on Aug 8th (for Labor
Day),
when they got back on Sept 6th, could they re-pass it on Sept 10th? If
they
can't re-pass it as-is at any time, what about if they passed it on Dec
20th and the new congress convenes on Jan 3rd? Can the NEW congress then
pass it on Jan 5th as-is?
(3)
If they can't re-pass it as-is at all, how much changes need to be in it
to
allow them to do so? I.e. let's say it was a bill to take 1,000,000
acres
of land and create a national park and the bill ran 100 pages (they were
tired that day and didn't want to get overly wordy, ya know?) Would
having
the exact same text except that it's now 999,999 acres (and a change to
the
text for the specifications of the boundary to fit the new size) be
enough
of a change?
would
they? If they know they don't have the votes, they would just open
themselves up to criticism as a do-nothing Congress and for wasting
taxpayer
money. Just remember that every Congressperson who repeatedly casts a
vote on legislation they know won't be signed has to face re-election and
explain to voters why he or she indulged in such a fruitless effort. You
do
it once or twice to get on the record and to attempt to over-ride the
president's veto, but after that you move onto other things.
As if Congress doesn't do things that slow the process and hamper the
running of the country!!! Heck, that idea would apply to the first passage >of a bill the President has said would not be signed. Why would repeated >passages be any different?
"Rick C" wrote in message
news:64837110-a59f-4a09...@googlegroups.com...
As if Congress doesn't do things that slow the process and hamper the >running of the country!!! Heck, that idea would apply to the first passage >of a bill the President has said would not be signed. Why would repeated >passages be any different?
The first time they vote, they do it to get on the record and in the hope
the president will face public pressure and sign. When the president vetos the bill, they try again, again to get on the record, and this time in the hope that some Members will have changed their mind. Once that vote fails, there is usually no point in scheduling another vote unless circumstances change or the president now indicates a willingness to sign the vote. At
that point, repeatedly voting for a bill they know will be overriden becomes counter-productive and it just doesn't happen.
I've been watching politics for more than 50 years and can't remember any case where Congress repeatedly tried to pass the exact same bill knowing it would be vetoed. Yes, they occasionally revote if changes have been made to the bill or if something major happened to change the public mood, but I've never seen repeated voting several times for the exact same bill that they know won't be signed.
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:11:01 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
"Rick C" wrote in message
news:64837110-a59f-4a09...@googlegroups.com...
The first time they vote, they do it to get on the record and in the hope
As if Congress doesn't do things that slow the process and hamper the
running of the country!!! Heck, that idea would apply to the first
passage
of a bill the President has said would not be signed. Why would repeated
passages be any different?
the president will face public pressure and sign. When the president
vetos
the bill, they try again, again to get on the record, and this time in
the
hope that some Members will have changed their mind. Once that vote
fails,
there is usually no point in scheduling another vote unless circumstances
change or the president now indicates a willingness to sign the vote. At
that point, repeatedly voting for a bill they know will be overriden
becomes
counter-productive and it just doesn't happen.
I've been watching politics for more than 50 years and can't remember any
case where Congress repeatedly tried to pass the exact same bill knowing
it
would be vetoed. Yes, they occasionally revote if changes have been made
to
the bill or if something major happened to change the public mood, but
I've
never seen repeated voting several times for the exact same bill that
they
know won't be signed.
Politics is about theater as much as anything. Just like a protest march, >much of it has to do with making statements. It is very common for the >process of passing bills into law being much more about making statements >than it is the laws themselves, even to the point of obstructing the
process. The US Congress is in no way shy about interfering with the
process of making laws. Ever hear of the filibuster? The only function of >the filibuster is to prevent any further action by the Senate. Getting rid >of it is being discussed in a way that makes it appear almost holy.
It is not unusual to pass a bill that the President has said he would veto. >The bill is passed not to create a law, but to make a statement. When >members of Congress feel strongly enough passing the exact same bill again >would make an even stronger statement.
When you say this has not happened, it is not relevant to the question I >asked, "Why would repeated passages be any different?"
"Mike Anderson" wrote in message news:stts8k$dkn$1@dont-email.me...
https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm
"The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint
resolution and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The
president has ten days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by
Congress. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the
legislation to the house in which it originated, usually with a
message explaining the rationale for the veto. This veto can be
overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House.
If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's objections.
A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day period.
The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's
decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress
does not have the opportunity to override."
A few things here:
(1)
Can Congress re-pass, with no wording at all, a bill that had
previously been vetoed? I.e. could they just keep re-passing a bill
that POTUS has explicitly signed a veto, hoping he will eventually
cave and sign it? Or maybe at the time of the first passing of it,
POTUS said "no, because of XYZ happening right now" but then they wait
a month and now XYZ is no longer happening and they're hoping now
POTUS will be more agreeable? Or, if it was a pocket veto, basically
pass it again when they re-convene?
(2)
Assuming they can re-pass it as-is, but with some qualifiers, if they
passed it, say, on Aug 1st and then left town on Aug 8th (for Labor
Day), when they got back on Sept 6th, could they re-pass it on Sept
10th? If they can't re-pass it as-is at any time, what about if they
passed it on Dec 20th and the new congress convenes on Jan 3rd? Can
the NEW congress then pass it on Jan 5th as-is?
(3)
If they can't re-pass it as-is at all, how much changes need to be in
it to allow them to do so? I.e. let's say it was a bill to take
1,000,000 acres of land and create a national park and the bill ran
100 pages (they were tired that day and didn't want to get overly
wordy, ya know?) Would having the exact same text except that it's now
999,999 acres (and a change to the text for the specifications of the
boundary to fit the new size) be enough of a change?
They can absolutely keep passing the same bill over and over, but why
would they? If they know they don't have the votes, they would just
open themselves up to criticism as a do-nothing Congress and for wasting taxpayer money. Just remember that every Congressperson who
repeatedly casts a vote on legislation they know won't be signed has to
face re-election and explain to voters why he or she indulged in such a fruitless effort. You do it once or twice to get on the record and to attempt to over-ride the president's veto, but after that you move onto
other things.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 407 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:11:35 |
| Calls: | 8,554 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,219 |
| Messages: | 5,925,565 |