Why was there no veto override vote in the Senate?

[Hart2008]

Since the Senate is the more important of the two houses because of the filibuster, why not make them vote there? We need to make them vote on these things so the public can hold them accountable.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[frogcycle]

1. no point once the house didn't override

we can't "make" them vote on something just for symbolism - only they get to do that.

[Hart2008]

2. Why did Pelosi have the vote in the House then? The Senate is more important!

And they can have the vote in the Senate, regardless of the vote in the House.

[DURHAM D]

4. Don't funding bills have to come from the House? n/t

[frogcycle]

5. neither is "more important"

both have to override

funding bills are originated in the House (says so in the Constitution)
the originating body for any bill votes first on an override attempt

and there is no POINT in having a vote in the Senate once the House fails to override

[Hart2008]

6. It is important to put the Repub Senators on record for the vote. Let the voters know how they vote

The Senate still can hold the override vote. It should be done for the record.

[frogcycle]

7. why did you post the original question? you didn't want an answer n/t

[Hart2008]

9. You are politically tone deaf. I have yet to hear a good answer to the question.

How long does it take to hold the vote?

They can't filibuster a veto override, can they?

Why not make them vote again on it?

The more we make the Repubs vote for the war, the better.

Why waste the opportunity to let them vote against something 60% of the people want?

Give them as many chances to drink the Kool-Aide as we can!

[frogcycle]

10. ok, now I'm singing

United States Constitution
Article I, Setion 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten 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 their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5


try doing some homework before pounding your little fists
or at least go look it up when someone answers your question instead of ad hominem attacks

[Hart2008]

12. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays...

...and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively."

Obviously, you may be able sing, but can’t read or understand making the political point. Your lack of critical thinking ability is not an ad hominem attack. In fairness political tone deafness has been common in the party in recent years.

“Shall” is an imperative modal with means the vote is REQUIRED by the Constitution. (“May” would make the vote merely permissive.) The Constitution REQUIRES we hold the vote, the failure to override in the other house not withstanding. The Constitution REQUIRES the vote in the Senate. We control the Senate. We should schedule the vote in the Senate for the record, ASAP! Regardless of the mootness of the action, when the other party is obstructing the will of the vast majority, holding the vote for the record serves the legitimate purpose accountability.

Unlike you, I want to hold someone accountable here, as permitted by our Constitution, which you don’t understand.

Unlike you, I want to hold the obstructionist Repubs accountable for the roadblock, YOU DON’T!

FAILURE TO HOLD THE VOTE IN THE SENATE IS POLITICAL IDIOCY!

I AM CALLING MY SENATOR TO DEMAND THAT THEY HOLD THE VOTE.

EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD DO THE SAME!

LET THE REPUBS DRINK MORE KOOL-AIDE!

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[frogcycle]

15. un-be-damn-lievable

[frogcycle]

16. while you're at it, demand that the sun come up in the west

[frogcycle]

17. "political tone deafness has been common in the party in recent years."

so has making shit up and wishful thinking

"in all such cases" means in those cases where a vote is actually held, as prescribed in the previous sentence, which clearly states it is held in the second house if it passes the first.

All your ranting and raving won't change that. Calling me stupid and saying I don't want to hold people accountable won't change that. You don't know me from Adam and you don't know jack shit.

There are PLENTY of actual places to hold these assholes accountable; I want to see most of them in jail. Tilting at windmills is not going to accomplish that.

I want the senate ethics committee to draw and quarter Domenici. Call your senator and demand that.

[Hart2008]

18. "in all such cases" means "in all such cases". Reid can schedule the vote.

I remember this being done before when the other house didn't vote to override to make a political point.

Unanimous consent is not required.

They could filibuster the vote, but that would be unusual since it requires fewer votes for a cloture vote than to vote to override.

I didn't call you stupid, just politically tone deaf and lacking critical thinking. To hold people accountable requires winning elections. With all of the problems of present administration the slender majorities in each house attest to the lack of leadership in the party.

Nor do I need to resort to using bad language since, unlike you, I am capable of an intelligent discussion on the topic.

[onenote]

20. No he can't

Reid can't schedule a vote on a bill that isn't before the Senate. The bill was returned to the House,per the instructions in the Constitution. The first override was in the House, per the Constitution. The bill would have been sent to the Senate by the House if the House had overriden, per the Constitution. But the House didn't override, so the process ended. No bill sent to the Senate, nothing for the Senate to consider.

And the sentence "In all such cases..." clearly refers to all such cases where the bill actually is voted on; in other words, the vote in the House had to be a roll call, per the Constitution. ANd if the vote had been to override and the bill had, per the Constitution, been sent to the Senate for reconsideration, the Senate vote would've been a roll call vote. But since nothing was sent to the Senate, there was no vote to be held.

[Hart2008]

8. Dems are in the majority. Dems can make them vote on the veto override, even for symbolism.

Why not?
The more times we make the Repubs vote for the war, the more unhappy people back home get, the better for election day in November 2008.

[Benhurst]

3. Appropriations bills start in the House. It may have something to do with that.

:shrug:

[ripple]

11. It didn't pass the House

And we don't have the votes to override the veto in the Senate, anyway. It takes a 2/3 majority to override. We're about 16 votes shy of that, I believe.

[Hart2008]

13. Lacking the votes is irrelevant. The issue here is political accountability.

It is one more vote on the record to use on Election day 2008.

Then we can advertise Senator Repub voted against ending the Iraq war X number of times.

I want that X number to be as high as possible.

People understand voting records on the war.

The question is does Reid?

[MGKrebs]

14. The Senate has different rules.

It's pretty easy to block a vote in the Senate I believe. And If I am not mistaken, tradition is that it can even be blocked anonymously.

[onenote]

19. because the Constitution says so.

The Constitution is unmistakably clear on the override process: A bill that is vetoed is returned to the House in which the bill originated (in this case the House of Representatives). That body then reconsiders the vetoed measure. IF that reconsideration produces a 2/3 vote to override, then the bill is sent over to the other House for reconsideration. Article I, Section 7.

The bill failed to be overriden in the House. Thus, Constitutionally, there is no provision for the bill to be sent to the Senate for reconsideration. It may seem arcane, but bills don't just magically appear in the House or Senate to be voted on. There are procedures for moving a bill through COngress.

The simple fact is that the Senate didn't hold a vote to override because the bill was never sent to them by the House and it was never sent to them by the House because, per the Constitution, it would only be sent to the Senate by the House if the House successfully overrode, which it didnt.

[frogcycle]

21. thank you

between one note and tone deaf, maybe we can actually get the point across...

nahhhh!

[Hart2008]

22. Thank you for an intelligent and civilized response.

OK I missed that. I thought I remembered something different. I must have been confusing something. The procedures are different in the two houses on the veto override vote. The Senate permits a reconsideration of the vote. In the House it is one and done.

Reid still needs to get more votes on the record here.

[onenote]

23. your welcome

The rules of the House and the Senate, including the procedures established in the Constitution, those established by each body, and the unwritten rules of procedure that sometimes actually govern how things work, are pretty arcane and often limit the options available to the House and Senate leadership. One of my best friends here in DC is considered to be as knowledgable an expert on these procedures as anyone (he worked on the Hill for over 25 years) and even he sometimes has trouble explaining the process to me!