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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Now we are starting to hear from China: "We don't want your dirty tar sands oil" [View all]Samantha
(9,314 posts)34. I think this is different because it falls within that unique category
It is an Executive Branch function to approve this pipeline since it crosses an international border. Were it not for that, the President would not have to approve it. So if the Senate along with the House pass a bill and the President does not sign it, I do not see how it becomes a law.
Sam
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Now we are starting to hear from China: "We don't want your dirty tar sands oil" [View all]
Samantha
Nov 2014
OP
Excellent point, and same with Canada, where federal elections are a year away. Congress votes
Fred Sanders
Nov 2014
#5
If the president does not sign a bill, it almost always becomes law 10 days after passage.
tritsofme
Nov 2014
#18
If Congress adjourns before the 10 days, the bill fails, it's often called a 'pocket veto'...
Spazito
Nov 2014
#22
The timing of the Landrieu's December 6th runoff make a pocket veto strategy very unlikely
tritsofme
Nov 2014
#25
Bringing a bill before the Senate for a vote doesn't necessarily mean a vote takes place...
Spazito
Nov 2014
#27
He may well do a straight up veto as opposed to a pocket veto, I suspect he will...
Spazito
Nov 2014
#31
The media is playing this up as if it is a strategy to help Landrieu win her runoff
Samantha
Nov 2014
#36
If there are constitutional issues with the bill, that would have to be resolved in the courts
tritsofme
Nov 2014
#37
I have been doing a lot of research on this and it is clear this pipeline has to have Presidential
Samantha
Nov 2014
#43
To reach the goals agreed to by 2030 China can no longer afford tar sands oil. Well played, Obama.
Fred Sanders
Nov 2014
#3
Good for China. I've seen pictures of air pollution over there and it is terrible. Tar sands oil
Louisiana1976
Nov 2014
#4
I visited Bejing...June 2003? ... 2PM... I could look directly into the sun
HereSince1628
Nov 2014
#11
Isn't it just too wonderful? If it doesn't happen, the Koch Brothers would lose
Samantha
Nov 2014
#8
That sounds like a lot, but for the Kochs $100,000,000 is about 2 days investment earnings
Electric Monk
Nov 2014
#19
I guess we will just have to take our consolation in the fact they are making no money
Samantha
Nov 2014
#38
I think a bigger consolation would be if the oil sands stop polluting the fuck out of the north.
Electric Monk
Nov 2014
#39
It is possible he did, great move too, a shiv to both the GOP and the Koch Bros.
IdiocracyTheNewNorm
Nov 2014
#9
He's been stalling them for years, now it's come to a head. Bush wanted it in 2007.
freshwest
Nov 2014
#14
Thanks. I didn't post it in GD at the time as many were mixing up apples and oranges.
freshwest
Nov 2014
#21
When this controversy first erupted, one of the Ivy League law schools had someone
Samantha
Nov 2014
#32
Thanks, I also heard the figure 50 on the jobs, as well. You did great, hope you saved the links.
freshwest
Nov 2014
#33
It appears plain that the Legislative Branch cannot approve the Keystone Pipeline
Samantha
Nov 2014
#44