by georgia10
Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:51:15 PM PST
In Decemeber, President Bush claimed to pocket veto the defense authorization bill because his administration concluded -- after the bill was passed --that a provision in the bill would "imperil" Iraqi assets in the U.S. (of course, the administration's panic attack over pissing off the Iraqi government isn't necessarily supported by the
facts). But the administration scrambled to dispose of the bill nonetheless, and now
the military is facing the headaches and consequences:
The Army has temporarily halted bonus payments for more than 20 enlistment, re-enlistment and service extension programs pending enactment of authorizing legislation. <...>
If enacted as currently written, the legislation would authorize $696.3 billion in defense spending during 2008, including $1 billion for Army accession and retention bonuses.
Until a new version of the legislation is enacted, all new bonus agreements signed on, or after, Jan. 1 must include an addendum that stipulates the soldier’s eligibility for a future bonus.
However, the addendum also stipulates that the bonus is not guaranteed. Payments will not be made if the affected bonus program is not authorized in the final budget compromise. <...>
Soldiers whose service contracts expire during the impasse have the option of extending month by month until the problem is worked out, or sign a service agreement on the assumption that a new authorization bill will be enacted.
Last year's escalation proved that the administration doesn't care about how the president's decisions affect the lives of soldiers. Why should this year be any different?
By Walter Alarkon
January 02, 2008
House Democrats and the Bush administration appear on the verge of a new constitutional fight over whether President Bush can pocket-veto the defense authorization bill.
The White House on Monday said it was pocket-vetoing the measure, but a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the president cannot use such a measure when Congress is in session. The distinction over whether the president can pocket-veto the bill is important because such a move would prevent Congress from voting on an override.
“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. He said the Speaker is keeping all legislative options on the table.
<...>
Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress, said that the president is inviting a constitutional fight in trying a pocket veto.
“The administration would be on weak grounds in court because they would be insisting on what the Framers decidedly rejected: an absolute veto,” Fisher said.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
