Public Letter to President Obama: - President Obama: Veto Yes; Pocket Veto, No on HR 3808 !

[Better Believe It]

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.

Robert J. Spitzer

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

So should President Obama play it safe and avoid potential lawsuits by banks by employing "a regular or return veto" as recommended by this constitutional scholar? What do you think? From everything I've read so far it seems to me that nothing bad can happen if President Obama just flat out kills HR 3808 with a regular veto. Why open the door to the big banks challenging this in courts that could be decided in their favor by conservative judges or be challenged and overturned by a Republican Congress? BBI

[Newsjock]

1. A little late to the party on this one

He vetoed it yesterday.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

7. Do you have a opinion on the scholars article or would you rather engage in personal attacks?

[HughMoran]

13. The two day article is irrelevant. It's called a VETO

Perhaps you've heard of it?

[jaxx]

14. The scholar should have checked his facts

before he let his piece out for public consumption. He must feel like a fool today.

[Better Believe It]

18. Really? So you understand a great deal more about the constitution than him.

He only wrote a book on Presidential vetoes so what does he know?

[jaxx]

21. The President knows.

Anything else?

[SargeUNN]

22. still doesn't change the facts

Obama vetoed the bill so why bother posting this unless of course it just falls into the let's bash Obama category. That is how all this birther crap keeps going, no matter how it is proven wrong, the birthers keep spewing it.

[SargeUNN]

16. the article is as useless as can be

It is like an article talking about why no team that lost to the Tampa Bay Bucs in the regular season never won the Super Bowl, and while it might have been true until the last Super Bowl, it is not true now since the Saints lost to the Bucs and won the Super Bowl. When something becomes incorrect it is incorrect but like Saints haters it keeps being used no matter how it is incorrect.

[HughMoran]

25. +infinity

[Better Believe It]

10. How's that? The scholar questions the "pocket veto".

[Pathwalker]

4. Linky link to ACTUAL veto:

:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/10/08/presidential-memorandum-hr-3808

Ahem.

[Better Believe It]

9. Would you like to respond to the writers letter?

I'm listening.

[HughMoran]

12. Listening?

:rofl:

[JTFrog]

5. /double facepalm

Talk about showing your ass once again.

[Better Believe It]

8. Not a response. I take it you can't challenge the constitutional scholars letter.

Why not just say that rather than engage in yet another personal attack?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

20. And your regular personal attacks against DU'ers have grown even staler.

You're on ignore.

Bye.

[HughMoran]

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

Please?

I beg of you. My hat is in my hand. Please?

[DevonRex]

28. Hugh, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps he already did, but failed to make

a huffy announcement about it. How long has it been since he actually replied to you?

I'd call that a pocket ignore, if that's what occurred. After all, without the announcement, what good does it do?

[MineralMan]

31. A pocket ignore! Bwahaha!

:rofl: :applause:

[HughMoran]

32. Pocket ignore!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Good one. :thumbsup:

[Spazito]

37. ROFL!

"a pocket ignore" Beautiful, absolutely beautiful!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

42. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[HughMoran]

6. Lol - the preemptive outrage is still full tilt

Even after the actual veto has been rendered.

Predictable, yet I'm not surprised. Have fun getting beat down for this one.

[lamp_shade]

15. Oh... it's you.

[Better Believe It]

17. Democrats challenged a virtually identical "pocket veto" by George Dubya Bush!

Today's Must Read
By Paul Kiel
January 3, 2008

Last week, the president claimed to have sunk Congress' defense authorization bill by pocket veto. Now Democrats are saying he can't do that.

.... on December 28th, the president proclaimed that the defense authorization bill was dead by pocket veto.

But, as Kagro X at Daily Kos first pointed out, there's a problem with that. Though the president said that "adjournment of Congress" allowed him to pocket veto, Congress was not, in fact, in adjournment.

To prevent administration monkey business during the holiday recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) kept the Senate in pro forma session throughout. By keeping the Senate nominally in session (someone shows up for a few minutes every third day), Reid stifled the administration's desire for a bunch of recess appointments.

So now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is saying that the pocket veto is bunk.

“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."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news-archive

Now, it's possible that the White House just didn't think this one through. Or maybe they thought no one would call them on it. In any case, the White House has responded with a Constitutional interpretation that seems somewhat improvisational.

True, the Senate was in session, they say. But we sent the president's veto to the House, and they were in recess. So voila! pocket veto!

Read the full article at:

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

[HughMoran]

24. Defending posting old, no longer relevant news with an article about Bush?

Interesting...

[treestar]

19. Why not just be happy it's not going to become a law for now?

Not that it would have made a great big substantive difference. Tempest in a teapot all around.

[Better Believe It]

26. Didn't you read my post on Thursday? ""President Obama is not signing HR 3808! Good news!"

"President Obama is not signing HR 3808! The Notarizations Act. Good news!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9274211

[grantcart]

27. Trying to pick apart the President's veto

Is there any clearer evidence that the poster will post any criticism of the President from any source for any reason on any premise on any argument in any situation from any time zone in any language by any matter of writing instrument on any type of writing surface on any issue?

The President is against the law. The President prevented the law from taking effect.

It is necessary to have further deliberations about the possible unintended impact of H.R. 3808, the "Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010," on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before the bill can be finalized. Accordingly, I am withholding my approval of this bill. (The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)).

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. My Administration will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 8, 2010.

[Better Believe It]

34. That's what the banks and Repubs may try to do. Are you against safeguards that can prevent that?

And I really don't like you misrepresenting and distorting my positions in order to justify your personal attacks.

If you don't agree with DU rules regarding civil debate and personal attacks why are you here?

[grantcart]

44. The President's veto is the safeguard against it but typically you don't

post an OP in support of the President's action in safeguarding but some nitpicking arcane BS that HE DIDN'T SAFEGUARD ENOUGH.


Predictable and habitual you will use any source from the most liberal to the most conservative to bring up any possible criticism of the President, cut and paste it.

This OP simply shows how great a pretzel you will weave to try and turn a postive action by the President into something negative.

Of course you don't like it. It exposes how committed you are to find any excuse to post an OP against the President.

Its not even your first attack on the President's veto.

Just 8 hours earlier you posted this;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9281723

It is clear that you cannot let any action by the President stand as a good. You must continue to search and search and find some technical reason to be against the President's action.

That you continue to defend the indefensible shows clearly your motive.

There is nothing 'personal' about it. Your actions in attacking the President on the slimest of reasons is the basis for civil discussions. At no time have I called you any names or attacked you personally. Its the ideas that you bring here that I attack.

For a person who launches hundreds of threads attacking the President you seem very thin skinned when your OPs are exposed.

You are not the arbitrator of the rules of DU. If you think there has been a violation of the rules then alert on it. That you cannot defend your post and attempt to condescendingly refer to "the rules" to curb criticism of your post shows how shallow it is.

[HughMoran]

48. Are you against safeguards that can prevent that? Posted by Better Believe It

[Radical Activist]

40. Over time it becomes obvious

when someone is a partisan that's here to campaign against Obama.

[apocalypsehow]

43. This is why I wish we could "Rec" individual replies in OP's - you summed it up perfectly.

:thumbsup:

[DevonRex]

29. It was already vetoed the regular way, but even better. nt

[MineralMan]

30. Had you had a look at the news this morning, you wouldn't have

reposted this from yesterday. It's all been clarified. Still beating that dead horse? It still won't move. It's dead.

[HughMoran]

33. .

[onenote]

35. This "scholar" is worrying about something that isn't going to happen

As I have explained time and again, the procedure followed in these "intrasession recess" situations by the past few administrations is to assert that they have pocket vetoed a bill but to use the "protective return" to cover themselves. There is nothing "extra constitutional" about the protective return. Its simply a way of doubling down on the veto. The president says that he's using the pocket veto but takes all the steps necessary for a return veto. Its then in Congress' hands -- they could accept the idea that the bill was pocket vetoed or they could treat it as a return veto -- but either way its vetoed. In practice what happens is that Congress treats it as a return veto. If there was any chance of this veto being overriden you could have a potential lawsuit between the executive and legislative branches to establish whether an override was in order. But there will be no override of this veto. Hell, there won't even be a vote to override. Leahy has come out against and as long as he's chairman, this bill isn't coming back up in its current form. Even if the repubs were to capture control of the Senate, they couldn't get the votes to override.

So this is basically a bunch of bullshit handwringing. Unless the Obama administration departs from the practice of the past administrations and doesn't make a "protective return" of the bill by Tuesday, there is no way anyone can argue that the bill became law. The only issue is whether it was killed by a pocket veto or a return veto. And as explained, in this case that is a distinction without a difference.

PS: Here is what Bill Clinton did in a couple of times in these situations: He sent a 'protective return" of the bill back to Congress, along with the following message:" In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to “pocket veto” bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid litigation, I am also sending H.R. XXXX to the House of Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the measure." When he did this, Congress took the position that what he had done was really a return veto, thus allowing an override. The issue might have resulted in litigation but for one thing -- Congress either didn't try or didn't succeed in overriding these disputed pocket vetoes. And that's what going to happen with HR3808, I predict. The republic will not fall.

UPDATED: I just saw the post which contains the president's veto message. It confirms exactly what I wrote above.

[Better Believe It]

38. Well I hope you're right and that we won't see lawsuits by the banksters.

[onenote]

45. what are they going to allege? that the bill wasn't vetoed?

While your "scholar" claims that a president who asserts that he is pocket vetoing a bill but completes the formalities of a "return veto" has done something "extra constitutional" and "suspect." But does he cite anything in support? Of course not, because he can't. The only debate that occurs when the President proceeds (as both Clinton and both Bushes did) by asserting a pocket veto but following the steps for a return veto is whether the bill is subject to override. I don't think your banksters will have any basis for bringing that suit since there won't be an attempt to override or it won't succeed. Vetoing a bill by alternative means where there is ambiguity as to which applies doesn't mean the two efforts cancel each other out. Like the wicked witch, this bill is morally, ethically,spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably,and reliably dead. Indeed, it is not merely dead, it is most sincerely dead.

[Better Believe It]

46. Can't they make the same allegations that Democrats made against Bush on his "pocket veto" in 2008?

If not, why not? I'm listening.




Today's Must Read
By Paul Kiel
January 3, 2008

Last week, the president claimed to have sunk Congress' defense authorization bill by pocket veto. Now Democrats are saying he can't do that.

To prevent administration monkey business during the holiday recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) kept the Senate in pro forma session throughout. By keeping the Senate nominally in session (someone shows up for a few minutes every third day), Reid stifled the administration's desire for a bunch of recess appointments.

So now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is saying that the pocket veto is bunk.

“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."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news-archive

Now, it's possible that the White House just didn't think this one through. Or maybe they thought no one would call them on it. In any case, the White House has responded with a Constitutional interpretation that seems somewhat improvisational.

True, the Senate was in session, they say. But we sent the president's veto to the House, and they were in recess. So voila! pocket veto!

Read the full article at:

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

[onenote]

49. thank you for making my point: the issue in 2008 was whether the bill could be overriden

The issue in 2008 was not whether the bill wasn't vetoed, it was whether the veto was a pocket veto or a regular veto. Congress is going to take the position, like they did in 2008, that it was a regular veto and could be overriden. They just won't try. And no lawsuit can make them.

[pinboy3niner]

56. FTW

Excellent reply, clearly and articulately explained. :thumbsup:

[onenote]

36. Delete - dupe

[Radical Activist]

39. What a waste of time.

There's an election coming up and major issues to deal with. It isn't a good time to indulge people who cynically search for disappointment in victory.

[apocalypsehow]

41. LOL..."as recommended by this constitutional scholar".... Literally. Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Better Believe It]

47. You're challenging Robert Spitzers credentials? List your credentials on this subject professor.

Robert J. Spitzer
Distinguished Service Professor, Political Science, SUNY Cortland, and author of Presidential Veto: Touchstone of the American Presidency.

Awards and honors

Chair of Political Science Department SUNY Cortland(2008-current)
SUNY Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Activities (2003)
President, Presidency Research Group of the American Political Science Association (2001–2003)
Cortland College Student Association Outstanding Faculty Award (1987, 1991 and 2003)
New York State/United University Professions Excellence Award (1991)
Best Paper Award, American Political Science Association (1996)
Member, New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution (1986–1990)
Former Chair, Homer Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Officer, Cortland Tompkins and Chenango County Boards of Health

He is the author of the following books:

The Presidency and Public Policy (1983)
The Right to Life Movement and Third Party Politics (1987)
The Presidential Veto (1988)
The Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution (1990)
President and Congress (1993)
Media and Public Policy (1993)
The Politics of Gun Control (1995, 1998, 2004)
Politics and Constitutionalism (2000)
The Right to Bear Arms (2001)
Essentials of American Politics (2002)
The Presidency and the Constitution (2005)
Saving the Constitution from Lawyers (2008)
Editor, Book Series on American Constitutionalism for SUNY Press

Since you laughed at Spitzer's credentials, should we assume have a much more impressive list of academic accomplishments. For example, do you have a GED diploma?

List your accomplishments now professor "apocalypsehow".

You have the floor!

[onenote]

51. I'll list mine:

Graduate summa cum laude, University of Virginia
Graduate with Honors, Columbia University Law School, member of the Law Review
Member of the Supreme Court bar.
Legislative counsel for various entities for nearly 25 years.

Spitzer didn't go to law school. Has never practiced constitutional law or worked in the legislative or executive branches as far as I can tell. He's an academic, with an academic's opinions. But he hasn't cited a thing to support the theory (and I'm not even sure it is his theory) that want Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton and now Obama have done in these situations nullifies the veto of a bill. As I noted before, the fact that the president calls his veto a pocket veto but takes the steps required for a regular veto doesn't somehow result in a bill not being vetoed. Its merely an issue of whether the bill can be overriden. Congress as a matter of principle would take the position they could. As a matter of policy they won't try so the question is moot. If Spitzer is actually claiming that Obama's actions somenow resulted in the bill not being vetoed, he's an scholar-idiot.

[Better Believe It]

52. Has apocalypsehow retained you as his/her legal counsel or pinch hit poster? LOL

Well, he/her silence may indicate they have no credentials.

In any case, you at least have some academic credentials.

Have you read Spitzer's book "Presidential Veto: Touchstone of the American Presidency"?

I'm wondering if it's a mere academic exercise with no basis in Washington "reality politics" or is it worth reading?

So you don't think we have anything to worry about and the "veto" can't/won't be challenged in the courts by the banksters/Republicans.

I hope you're right.

Because Democrats challenged a similiar veto by Dubya back in 2008.

[apocalypsehow]

53. *Tsk, *tsk. Such anger - that can't be good for you.

Calm yourself: just because your OP isn't going all that smoothly, it's just a message board.

Look at this way: you are not "really" being embarrassed by your own thread; just your anonymous DU moniker is.

It's gonna be alright, I pinky-promise. :pals:

[Better Believe It]

55. I'm hardly angry with you. Just curious on why you need professional help in responding to a post.

Of course, I can see you didn't get any help in preparing your latest comment.

Who in the world would suggest you offer a "pinky-promise" peace token?

Now that is funny!

:)

[apocalypsehow]

58. Oh, you're fairly boiling over with it - largely a symptom of embarrassment.

If I were you, given this same OP that's been (rightly) laughed up one side & down the other, I'd probably be blushing-mad, too.

But like I said, it'll be alright.

Promise.

Pinky-promise, even.









( :rofl: )

[onenote]

57. I'll try one more time to explain although it appears you can't/won't pay attention

Yes the Democrats challenged a similar veto by Dubya in 2008. Their challenge? Not that the bill wasn't vetoed, but merely that it was a regular veto that could be overridden not a pocket veto that can't be overriden. As I have said repeatedly, I expect that as a formal matter, the House leadership will do the same thing with Obama's veto -- they will acknowledge it in the Congressional Record as a regular veto, not as a pocket veto. But unlike the situation in 2008, the House leadership is not going to "challenge" the White House by trying to override the veto of HR 3808. Leahy has made it clear he supports the veto and he is in a position as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to see to it that the bill never comes up for an override vote in the Senate. I'm quite confident that Pelosi will follow the same course in the House, given that she has made no effort to defend the bill. The bill is dead, plain and simple and anyone who claims that there will an effort to claim the bill wasn't vetoed or thinks that there will be an effort to actually override the bill (as opposed to simply noting disagreement over the manner in which the veto was effectuated) is simply blind to precedent and reality.

[apocalypsehow]

59. It's been a valiant effort, but our friend the OP gets fairly overwhelmed when confronted with facts

Go easy on 'im. :thumbsup:

[backscatter712]

50. He vetoed it. What more do you want?

Does it matter if it's a pocket veto or a conventional veto?

That bill's dead. And good on Obama for vetoing it!

[apocalypsehow]

54. You're about to get an earful about the "constitutional scholar" who never bothered with law school

... :rof: :rofl: :rofl:

[inna]

60. Wow. One sad, pathetic thread - and I don't mean the OP.

It's almost surreal and definitely more than a little creepy. No wonder people are being driven away by this kind of mentality and maturity. :shakes head: :wtf: