Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Will President Obama veto the D.C. appropriations bill?
from Monday, for a little context, below, more at this link -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=5240507
http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-to-congress-hands-off-d-c-s-marijuana-policy/?dcz=
The White House has a message for Congress — hands off the District of Columbia, including its new law decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.
Buried in a broadly worded veto threat of the Financial Services appropriations bill, the administration said Monday it “strongly opposes” language restricting the District’s ability to spend its own money on a host of issues, including implementing marijuana policy and abortions.
“The Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally-passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule,” the administration said. “Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department’s enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.”
The White House has a message for Congress — hands off the District of Columbia, including its new law decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.
Buried in a broadly worded veto threat of the Financial Services appropriations bill, the administration said Monday it “strongly opposes” language restricting the District’s ability to spend its own money on a host of issues, including implementing marijuana policy and abortions.
“The Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally-passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule,” the administration said. “Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department’s enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.”
The news has been about the President stating support for Washington D.C. home rule. But the bigger issue within the portion of the memo excerpted, above, is whether the appropriations bill, if passed with the Andy Harris amendment, would be blocked by the President... at least that's the take from one reporter who looked at the issue.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2014/07/15/white-house-threatens-to-veto-bill-that-would-kill-d-c-s-marijuana-decriminalization-law/
In June, Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, tacked on an amendment to the larger appropriations bill that said D.C. could not use any of its money to enact or enforce its locally passed decriminalization. The bill looks like it will survive its mandated 60-day Congressional review period, which expires Thursday, but if there is no money to enforce the law, it could be rendered meaningless.
The Appropriations Committee already passed the appropriations bill, which now has to make it through a full House vote and a joint conference with the Senate, which seems unlikely at best.
But the Office of Management and Budget, which issued the memo, didn't recommend that the president veto the bill just because it wanted to show its support for D.C. rights.
The memo gives a long lists of reasons why the bill should be blocked, including that it "impedes implementation of the Affordable Care Act, undermines critical components of Wall Street reform, and fails to provide the resources necessary to provide robust taxpayer services and improve tax enforcement."
In June, Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, tacked on an amendment to the larger appropriations bill that said D.C. could not use any of its money to enact or enforce its locally passed decriminalization. The bill looks like it will survive its mandated 60-day Congressional review period, which expires Thursday, but if there is no money to enforce the law, it could be rendered meaningless.
The Appropriations Committee already passed the appropriations bill, which now has to make it through a full House vote and a joint conference with the Senate, which seems unlikely at best.
But the Office of Management and Budget, which issued the memo, didn't recommend that the president veto the bill just because it wanted to show its support for D.C. rights.
The memo gives a long lists of reasons why the bill should be blocked, including that it "impedes implementation of the Affordable Care Act, undermines critical components of Wall Street reform, and fails to provide the resources necessary to provide robust taxpayer services and improve tax enforcement."
An appropriations bill is a budget bill. If this bill fails, I assume there would be a continuing resolution until Republicans can be persuaded to fund the working budget of the nation's capital city.