OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Showdown Avoided

January 17, 2008 - by Donny Shaw

A constitutional showdown began shaping up after President Bush pocket vetoed the Congress-passed Department of Defense Authorization bill while Congress was technically in session. Unlike regular vetoes, pocket vetoes are not eligible to be overridden by Congress and they can not be executed while Congress is in session. Bush’s pocket veto of the Defense bill occurred during Congress’ winter vacation. The only problem was that the Senate had been meeting during the vacation to hold brief pro-form sessions in order to block Bush from bypassing the normal confirmation and appointing federal officials using recess appointments. Technically, the Senate was there to receive the veto message of the Defense bill.

Originally, there were some rumblings among congressional Democrats that they would treat the President’s pocket veto as a regular veto and attempt an override vote. That route would have escalated the situation to a constitutional showdown — if the override succeeded, would the bill become law despite the un-overridable pocket veto?

But in the end, Congress decided to rework the bill to address Bush’s concerns and pass it again for him to sign. The House passed the revamped bill on Wednesday by a vote of 369-46 and the Senate is expected to easily approve it when they come back into session next week. The bill contains military bonuses and pay raises, veterans’ health insurance payments, and military retirement pay, among other thing, so there are a lot of people out there who will be happy that Congress decided to play it safe rather than proudly contest the legality of the pocket veto.

GovExec explains the little-noticed objectionable provision and how it was made more palatable to the President:

>The original provision, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., expanded the ability of American victims of terrorism to sue current and former state sponsors of terrorism for damages in U.S. courts. The language essentially would have held the current Iraqi government liable for suits filed by victims of former President Saddam Hussein’s regime.
>
>The new language includes a presidential waiver for all claims against Iraq that occurred before enactment of the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill. The president must notify Congress within 30 days of issuing the waiver or it cannot go into effect.
>
>House lawmakers also added non-binding “sense of the Congress” language urging the president to work with the Iraqi government to compensate Saddam’s victims.

The above image is of Bush signing the Defense Authorization bill in 2002.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

  • Sparhawk2k 01/17/2008 7:11pm

    Does ignoring it set any sort of precedent, if even just an informal one? Aren’t they saying that their way of being “in session” wasn’t valid and it was fine to do the pocket veto?

    Obviously I can see how they would want to get something like this through quickly but it still seems a bit strange…

  • Rowland 01/17/2008 9:07pm

    Congress didn’t want Bush appointing anyone. He could have appointed anyone if they weren’t in session. If, for example, Rice were to fire the FSOs who refused to go to Iraq for violating their contract, Bush could have appointed all the replacements immediately. It would have been a precedent with perhaps a limit of five years on the appointment. Bush would have done two things: Appointed federal employees traditionally hired by Congress and dems and put a term limit of federal employment for FSOs and, later, probably dem Congressmen who will not allow term limits in Congress – referring themselves to Foley and term limits where he declared an elected position not subject to a term limit.

    It can get real complicated, but Bush usually goes along with dem Congressmen who have been in office longer than Castro on things like firing and hiring Tanzanian ambassadors for Dodd and his PC friends; like Shays and Chayes and the USAID funding and planning of the Afghanistan War.

    So Dem Congressmen over estimated Bush’s threat and are embarrassed, but they look good to their constituents, federal employees; who’s hiring and term dems think they control. Both want to avoid employment time limits and are interested in creating federal employment for dems.

    If you check the bills there is special legislation for FSOs and their families if they are victims of terror. This legislation should have been for all federal employees serving overseas, but Congress passed. Peace Corps, for example, has had two murders that arguably can been tried as terror. Congress passes laws and discriminates based on federal employees agency or department and has problems passing laws that aren’t equal for all employees. If the equality is there, so is the employment under conditions good for all the federal employees. For example, if everyone lived under a five year employment limit, not 2 years for some or 20 years for others; it would be easier to pass legislation for 20 years and a pension for all the federal employees.

    Congress stopped all Presidential appointments and this is the issue.

  • Rowland 01/17/2008 9:07pm

    Congress didn’t want Bush appointing anyone. He could have appointed anyone if they weren’t in session. If, for example, Rice were to fire the FSOs who refused to go to Iraq for violating their contract, Bush could have appointed all the replacements immediately. It would have been a precedent with perhaps a limit of five years on the appointment. Bush would have done two things: Appointed federal employees traditionally hired by Congress and dems and put a term limit of federal employment for FSOs and, later, probably dem Congressmen who will not allow term limits in Congress – referring themselves to Foley and term limits where he declared an elected position not subject to a term limit.

    It can get real complicated, but Bush usually goes along with dem Congressmen who have been in office longer than Castro on things like firing and hiring Tanzanian ambassadors for Dodd and his PC friends; like Shays and Chayes and the USAID funding and planning of the Afghanistan War.

    So Dem Congressmen over estimated Bush’s threat and are embarrassed, but they look good to their constituents, federal employees; who’s hiring and term dems think they control. Both want to avoid employment time limits and are interested in creating federal employment for dems.

    If you check the bills there is special legislation for FSOs and their families if they are victims of terror. This legislation should have been for all federal employees serving overseas, but Congress passed. Peace Corps, for example, has had two murders that arguably can been tried as terror. Congress passes laws and discriminates based on federal employees agency or department and has problems passing laws that aren’t equal for all employees. If the equality is there, so is the employment under conditions good for all the federal employees. For example, if everyone lived under a five year employment limit, not 2 years for some or 20 years for others; it would be easier to pass legislation for 20 years and a pension for all the federal employees.

    Congress stopped all Presidential appointments and this is the issue.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.