Comments on: Is Pelosi Planning on Picking Bush’s Pocket?

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:25:06 +0000

Different situation in this case, as the House is out of session and the Senate is in session. So while Congress (as defined in case law cited by PhoenixWoman in a previous thread) is in session, the House is not. On the other hand, the House has kept the desk open specifically in order that there would be somewhere to which to return unsigned bills — as they were — but it seems (also per previous threads) there is no precedent nor case law to legitimate the keeping-the-desk-open maneuver.

It all looks very messy to me, as in: invites a trip to Court for whomever gets frustrated first. Now that the situation’s arisen, it would be bad if the D’s negotiated a resolution to this in such as way as to leave intact any precedent that tilts in the Executive’s favor.

By: DeadLast

DeadLast — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:42:19 +0000

Typo:

If any bill shall not be returned by the President…

By: DeadLast

DeadLast — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:40:45 +0000

Article 1.7 of the Constitution says:

“If any bill shall not be returned to the President within 10 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 thier adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.”

If, as asserted, the House was not adjourned, the President could have “returned it.” Thus, it is law. Even Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito can figure this one out. It just goes to remind everyone that school wasn’t one of W’s strengths.

By: DeadLast

DeadLast — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:26:31 +0000

I meant veto override.

By: DeadLast

DeadLast — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:25:08 +0000

EW,are you sure they need to veto? If congress was not in recess, and a bill sits for 10 days without being signed, it becomes law. I am not sure if that holds for appropriations bills, but I believe that is the law per the consititution.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:01:49 +0000

georgia10 at Kos has a story up about the government putting off bonus payments to the military. Seems without this bill they can’t afford the payments, so they’re sticking in a clause that they’ll pay later, if they have the money then.

More of ‘how Bush supports the military’, by not doing it.

By: BooRadley

BooRadley — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:27:55 +0000

OfT, but if Nancy is so thoroughly ~~fixated on earmarks~~ corrupt (which she appears to be) why did she bother to nominate Murtha for Majority leader?

Bush has completely exposed his political flanks and the thought that she won’t take full advantage is really depressing.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:27:36 +0000

Great catch!

And Jane Harmon is hugging Repugs as usual.

I did find this part of her statement to Scott Muller, CIA General Counsel interesting:

You discussed the fact that there is a videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the Inspector General finishes his inquiry.

(My Bold)

So it was Jane’s belief that the CIA was intending all along to destroy the Torture Tapes!

That doesn’t comport with what Mikey Hayden and others have led many to believe.

In this instance, I’m going with Jane.

By: brendanscalling

brendanscalling — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:13:24 +0000

Pelosi is going to back down. That’s what she does. Like her counterpart Reid, she talks big and does little.

By: BayStateLibrul

BayStateLibrul — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:07:51 +0000

OT, Harmon’s letter released (keep that tape) via the Muck

http://www.house.gov/apps/list.....letter.pdf