Is President Obama’s Pocket Veto on H.R. 3808 Possibly Ineffective?

[Better Believe It]

Is President Obama’s Pocket Veto on H.R. 3808 Possibly Ineffective?
by Foreclosure Fraud
October 8, 2010

Help me out here everyone

Email from reader…

The word is out that Pres. Obama’s pocket veto of the Digital Robo-Signing Act was actually a trick. Sen. Harry Reid didn’t actually adjourn the U.S. Senate. The Senate has been kept in session by a little understood ruse and the bill will become law tonight at midnight without the President’s signature.

The big banks will file suit after the election to have this bill declared to be law.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution seems to support this view.

Some drunken bankers were already bragging about this an some major news outlets, including Fox News have reported on this.

I do not believe tonight at midnight is the deadline for this as stated in the email above.

I believe it is Tues Oct 12th. (10 days from when presented not including Sundays)

Read the full post at:

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/10/08/action-alert-is-pres-obamas-pocket-veto-on-h-r-3808-possibly-ineffective/

I really don't know the answer to the posters question. I don't think there is anything to worry about. But I just don't know for sure. Please read the entire post. And I'd like to see a definitive answer to the question they ask.

Post your answer here of course and send it on to the poster at "4closurefraud" who asked for help on this.

Thanks.

Here's what the Constitution says:

"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."

But, the Senate hasn't adjourned, it's still formally in session. So does President Obama have to sign a formal veto of the bill?

[pnwmom]

1. No. The bill originated in the HOUSE, not the Senate,

so it doesn't matter what Harry Reid does or doesn't do.

It's the House that can't be in Session.

[Better Believe It]

7. Thanks for your help!

[littlewolf]

21. I believe that if either body is in session it has to be veto'd

because both bodies had to pass it in order to become law ....

[MineralMan]

34. You are incorrect. Veto messages go to the originating body.

The House is adjourned. Read the Constitution.

[BadgerKid]

2. Reid can't do that

since we haven't seen the long form of his birth certificate. :sarcasm:

EDIT: I was directing my comment at the email content: it sounded gossipy like only the RW can do.

[arcane1]

3. The email is confusing

It says that it becomes law at midnight, then says the banks will sue to make it law next month :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

5. Obama should take over those banks. If only!

[truedelphi]

30. Yes, and consider this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9282073

[JNelson6563]

40. The point is: Obama sucks

The rest is simply superfluous.

Julie

[Ikonoklast]

4. Are you desperate to find something negative to post about Obama?

Better believe it.

[Better Believe It]

6. Are you so desperate that you must continue your personal attacks against DU'ers?

Rather than answer a legitimate question you choose to attack.

You're now on ignore.

Bye, bye.

[Ikonoklast]

17. Again? Oh, the drama.

I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.

[dionysus]

45. shall i help you to the fainting couch? i am sure you're dashed! dashed i say!!11!!

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

49. I believe I have the vapors!

My delicate sensibilites have been cruelly bruised...I am being ignored by no one of any consequences whatsoever.

[truedelphi]

33. Don't we have a right to consider everything that is being talked about

On many financial sites all over the internet?

Or can we only question things that make only the Republicans look bad?

After all, it is up to our various states men and women to make themselves look good.

We can only help people in our Party by questioning procedures, protocols and language of the bills.

We especially have the right to question legislation that comes down the Pike these days. Back in 2008, a certain candidate for President assured us that if he became President, the legislative process in Congress would be made much more transparent.

[JNelson6563]

41. As I read that occurred to me as well.

Some are less subtle than others.

Julie

[joeybee12]

8. No fan of Obama, but I think this is unlikely...

they know if this happened the blowback would be horrific.

[onenote]

9. As I've explained elsewhere, there are two relevant issues

First, did the chamber of Congress that originated the bill (in the case the House) adjourn prior to the expiration of ten days (excluding Sundays) following the presentment of the bill to the President? Whether or not the Senate had adjourned isn't relevant because (as another poster in this thread has pointed out) it is not the chamber to which the bill would have to be returned in order for it to be vetoed in the regular manner.

Second, and this is trickier, is the question of whether the House is considered to have "adjourned" for purposes of the veto clause of the Constitution when it recesses but does not adjourn "sine die". The extreme position is that an adjournment for veto clause purposes only can occur when Congress adjourns sine die at the end of the second session of Congress. A more moderate view is that adjourning sine die at the end of either the first or second sessions of Congress consitutes an adjournment for veto clause purposes. The executive branch for many years has taken the position that any adjournment of more than 3 days allows pocket vetoes. If they were wrong about this, then in fact not returning the bill within ten days during a recess could mean the bill became law. However, the solution that has evolved to this conflict in interpreations is for the White House to announce that it has "pocket vetoed" a bill during an intrasession recess but at the same time, to engage in the technique known as a "protective return" by sending the bill back to the House clerk unsigned within the ten day (plus sundays) period. I expect that is what the Obama administration is doing and I expect that the administration will continue to refer to this as a pocket veto and the House will refer to it as return veto and life will go on. And those suggesting that somehow the veto wasn't effective will simply be revealing their lack of understanding of the law and history of the veto process.

[Better Believe It]

11. To be safe rather than sorry, do you think President Obama should sign a veto of the bill?

[onenote]

15. there is not such thing as "signing a veto"

A veto occurs when the bill is returned to the chamber of Congress from which it originated without the president's signature and with a written statment of the President's objections. Or a bill is pocket vetoed when the president doesn't sign it within ten days and the chamber originating it has adjourned.

As noted, the practice that has evolved is for the president in these intrasession recess situations to effectively do both -- to claim to have pocket vetoed the bill but also to return a copy to the House Clerk with a statement indicating that the president objects to the bill as passed. It sounds silly, but its essentially a way in which the two branches of government accomodate their competing interpretations.

Now, if the president doesn't engage in a protective return in this instance, things could get interesting. But each of the last several administrations have used the protective return process and I have no reason to think that Obama wouldn't do the same and, in fact, statements to the effect that he is "returning" the bill suggest strongly that is exactly what he is doing.

[Better Believe It]

35. do you think President Obama should sign a statement just to be safe?

[onenote]

36. I thnk he is doing that

if by "signing a statement" you mean sending the bill back to the House even though it is in recess. The reports indicate that he is going to 'return' the bill. This practice, known as a protective return, has been used by the last several administrations as a way of navigating the conflict between the executive branch petition that a pocket veto is in order during an intrasession recess and the contrary view of Congress.

So, yes I think he should use the protective return process (while still claiming to have pocket vetoed the bill) and I'd be surprised if he doesn't.

[MineralMan]

42. I'm quite certain that the President has excellent constitutional

legal advice. I'm sure he'll do whatever's needful. His advisors are probably more knowledgeable about the Constitution and all stuff like that than the average DUer. :rofl:

[Better Believe It]

50. By that I mean "a written statment of the President's objections."

Do you think he should write such a statement just to be safe and overcome any possible legal challenges?

[onenote]

59. yes, probably something similar to the statement already made

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808

[MineralMan]

24. You truly don't understand the veto, do you?

I recommend the interested Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto

Knowledge is Good!

[MineralMan]

10. No. Do you suppose that President Obama and his advisors

wouldn't know how this stuff works? Since the bill originated in the House of Representatives, it is not dependent on whether the Senate adjourns or not. The House is adjourned. This has all been explained many times before. Why are you presenting additional FUD? I don't understand.

[Better Believe It]

13. Read "onenote" post #9 and perhaps you'll understand.

And what's a FUD?

[MineralMan]

16. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

It's a propaganda tool used by many to confuse issues. You see, you post something that calls something into question unnecessarily. That makes people fearful because they're uncertain whether the propaganda is true or not. That leads to doubt about what they had heard before.

It's especially effective if the question is merely raised, but no research is done before posting the question. Had you looked for FUD on Wikipedia, you'd have found out what it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

You could also have looked up "veto" on Wikipedia, and you would have found the answer to this propaganda question and saved other DUers the trouble of debunking it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto

FUD.

Enjoy the rest of your day...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

26. So you're calling me ignorant. You've just won yourself a well deserved spot on my ignore list.

Enough name calling and personal attacks against DU'ers by you.

Bye.

[MineralMan]

29. Ignored! I'm just beyond distraught, I must say.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance. It can be corrected easily, using the links I provided. But...wait...you can't read this. Ah, well. Thank goodness, I'll be able to read your posts, since I never ignore anyone.

[dionysus]

46. are you ok, man? i just want to make sure he didn't hurt your feelings.

:rofl: :hi:

[MineralMan]

47. Well, I don't know how I'm going to go on.

DU won't be the same, ever again. Even now, I've had two gin and tonics, trying to dull the pain of this. The next thing you know, I'll start forgetting to post links in my threads. When will it all end? That's what I want to know... :scared:

[HughMoran]

56. /

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

62. I'm here for you, MM. Buck up, it's not so bad.

After a while, you'll realize that it's all for the better.

Just to get some sense of perspective on the matter, I've been ignored by bartenders before, now, that's a real tragedy.

[HughMoran]

54. Oh, please, I beg of you! Put me on ignore too!!!

Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please? Please?

[Spazito]

12. Congress adjourned September 30th...

"The bill passed the House in April and sailed through the Senate without debate at the end of September, as Congress adjourned for the Fall recess."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/president-obama-to-pocket-veto-bill-that-might-make-it-easier-to-foreclose-on-homes.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. The House adjourned, the Senate is in session.

ABC is wrong, or misleading, using the term "Congress" instead of "the House".

http://www.opencongress.org/
reports the Senate is in session, not on the floor, but in meetings.

I suggest interested persons read ALL of the 4closurefrand.com piece to get ALL of the intent/information.

[Spazito]

31. Congress means both the Senate and the House...

The Senate, by itself, does not constitute Congress nor does the House, by itself, constitute Congress. Both must be in session for Congress to be in session and that is not the case here as the House adjourned September 30th, 2010.

"Congress in the U.S. is bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_%28US%29

Note it doesn't say "consisting of the Senate OR the House of Representatives, it says AND.

"The U.S. Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, created in 1789 by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States , which defines its membership and its powers. Dividing Congress into two chambers, with the positive vote of both required to approve legislation, is based upon the founding father's concept of employing "checks and balances" to prevent tyranny. Congress is composed of two houses—the Senate and the House of Representatives."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/us-congress-and-legislatures/

[treestar]

14. Yes it was all a trick

Obama fooled us and is snickering right now and having a beer with his corporate buddies.

:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

19. That's not sarcasm. That just a plain silly response!

And do you really think that Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and friends drink Buds when they socialize with President Obama and Wall Street pals?

That cheap working class beer!

:)

[TwilightGardener]

20. Doesn't a Senator need to be present to keep the Senate in session?

If so, who is that Senator (presuming the anonymous poster isn't full of shit)?

[MineralMan]

23. It doesn't matter. The state of the Senate is irrelevant.

If they didn't officially adjourn the Senate, it was to prevent recess appointments by President Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Ah, OK. Thanks.

[Ozymanithrax]

28. The Constituiton is clear, since the House has adjourned it will work.

Democrats narrowly pass resolution to adjourn before elections
The Constitution has this to say:

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.

Under the Constitution, the President must return the bill to the House that originated it. HR3808 originated in the House of Representatives.

Bill Summary & Status 111th Congress 2009 - 2010 H.R.3808 Major Congressional Actions

MAJOR ACTIONS:
10/14/2009 Introduced in House
4/27/2010 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
9/27/2010 Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
9/27/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
9/27/2010 Cleared for White House.
9/30/2010 Presented to President.
10/8/2010 Vetoed by President.

Since the bill can not be returned to the House of Representatives because they have adjourned, the pocket Veto will work. Let the Bankers take it to court.

[MineralMan]

32. How dare you quote the Constitution? Some website already

said that's wrong. Which do you believe, some ancient document or some modern, up-to-date website? www.wegotsFUDgalore.com

[Ozymanithrax]

38. Look, I know the Constitution is only a piece of paper...

that Bush probably wiped his Tush with.

But I will stand by it, even in the face of "Some Web Sight."

[lonestarnot]

58. "A GD piece of paper" to bushitler.

[depakid]

51. delete

[Individualist]

37. A similar situation came up when the chimperor was in the White House

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/005010.php

[Radical Activist]

39. Skepticism with a little cynicism is a good thing.

Being so cynical as to be incapable of hearing good news isn't.

[Better Believe It]

43. Public Letter to President Obama: - President Obama: Veto Yes; Pocket Veto, No!

President Obama: Veto Yes; Pocket Veto, No!
Letter to President Obama
by Robert J. Spitzer
Distinguished Service Professor, Political Science, SUNY Cortland, and author of Presidential Veto: Touchstone of the American Presidency.
October 8, 2010



Mr. President, your October 7 announcement that you plan to veto a bill that has as its stated, and seemingly unexceptional purpose, of streamlining the recognition of notarized statements across state lines will be welcomed by consumer groups and others who fear that the bill would make it tougher for homeowners to challenge improper foreclosure attempts. And your stated justification -- that you "believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages" -- expresses a perfectly sensible caution.

But Mr. President, your intention, as repeated in news reports, to employ a pocket veto instead of a regular or return veto, is flat-out wrong, and there are three reasons why. First, the Constitution prefers the regular or return veto over the pocket veto. We know this because the framers emphatically and repeatedly rejected giving the president an absolute or no-override veto. In fact, the reconsideration of hastily conceived legislation was a prime concern of the framers. It is why they viewed the veto as a constructive power -- not merely the president saying "no" -- that would give both the president and Congress one final chance to improve legislation.

Second, the pocket veto -- which is absolute in its effect, because the bill dies without being returned to Congress -- can only be exercised under two conditions, described in Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: the first is congressional adjournment, and the second is that bill return is "prevented." Yes, Congress has adjourned, but not sine die (literally, "without a day"). According to the Office of the House Parliamentarian, the House is in adjournment until November 15. Under Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the House, the Clerk of the House is empowered to receive veto messages and other communications. This procedure has been used thousands of times for decades, and has passed constitutional muster. So if, as I say, the framers rejected an absolute veto for the president, why does he have the pocket veto, which is absolute in its effect? The answer was to prevent Congress from ducking a veto by passing a bill and quickly adjourning to avoid an anticipated veto, which depends on bill return. (Without the pocket veto, an objectionable bill would become law after ten days with or without the president's signature.)

Third, you can return the bill, H.R. 3808, to its house of origin, just as you said in your public statement. Therefore, that is what you must do if you intend to veto -- treat this as a regular or return veto. The constitutional procedures are clear, and so is your course of action.

Finally, if your intention to utilize a so-called "protective return" pocket veto (where the president returns the bill to Congress, but calls it a pocket veto not subject to override), as you did for the only other bill you have vetoed as president, that procedure is plainly extra-constitutional, utterly suspect, and completely unnecessary. The Constitution does not give presidents the option of choosing, or worse inventing, a veto method. Repeating that mistake would be worse than no veto at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-spitzer/pres-obama-veto-yes-pocke_b_754660.html

[MineralMan]

48. No matter how long you flog this horse, it will not move.

It is dead. Departed. Defunct. It is no longer a horse. It has expired, kicked the bucket, and is now deceased. The horse is no more, Huffington Post blogger notwithstanding.


N.B.: Even though I realize that you probably can't read this post, I felt moved to write it for the benefit of others in this thread. Perhaps, one day, in your beneficence, you will decide to unignore me and find this post. May it be so. That is my most heartfelt wish.

[HughMoran]

57. Pictures often tell the story best

[dionysus]

44. the most pathetic anti-obama propaganda you have ever posted... at long last, have you no shame?

[inna]

52. then alert the mods, FFS, and stop posting your vicious and revolting personal attacks.

isn't it against the DU rules??

:wtf:

[Ikonoklast]

61. Unintentional Irony Alert.

Must be a real...crisis.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

65. Who's "Obana' and who is "us"?

Forget it, I just really don't care about what you think.

OP deserves every response, negative or not.

[dionysus]

66. .

:rofl:

[depakid]

55. Did you even bother to read the post?

and btw: pocket veto's aren't quite the simple deal that people think- though like the OP, I don't think those quirks are going to affect the present case.

With a Republican Congress, however- that will be another matter.

[HughMoran]

53. Diggin' deep to prove that Obama can't do anything right

Wow, that's all I have to say is, wow.

[johnaries]

60. Ever hear of a pocket veto? It's dead, Jim. nt

[JNelson6563]

63. Pointing and laughing

at your repeated efforts to stir up some Obama hatin' on this issue. :rofl: