PDA

View Full Version : The Gambling law was vetoed by default, Please read.

Erik Blazynski
10-22-2006, 08:12 PM
Does anyone know a constitutional attorney? I would like to verify this..

The US constitution reads as follows in Article 1 Section 7 Clause 2

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
The bill was passed on Sept 29. It was not signed by the president until October 13. This is 12 days. By the letter of the constitution after the 10th day there is a pocket veto and this is NOT law. Congress adjourned on same day that the bill passes. Anyway you add it up this is not LAW.

Please spread the word about this and lets see what can be done.

here is a link to the constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section7


-Blazman
Xhad
10-22-2006, 08:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted)

[/ QUOTE ]

There were 2 Sundays between Sept. 29th and Oct. 13th. Learn to read.
[censored]
10-22-2006, 08:17 PM
lol

i can see the headlines now. Port security bill overturned as a result of message board thread.
Erik Blazynski
10-22-2006, 08:19 PM
I will dismiss your offensive tone and assume you simply have some personality disorder. All that aside, excluding Sundays there were 12 days.
JoseGonzlez
10-22-2006, 08:23 PM
you stupid moran, the bill was presented to the President a few days after it was passed. October 13 was the last day it could be signed. George Bush may be a moran also but he certainly is not stupid enought to wait too long to sign a bill he strongly supports.
Erik Blazynski
10-22-2006, 08:27 PM
I will dismiss you offensive tone and assume tha you have some personality disorder that does not allow you to have normal adult discourse or spell correctly. What day was it delivered to the president?
Atmosphere
10-22-2006, 08:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you stupid moran , the bill was presented to the President a few days after it was passed. October 13 was the last day it could be signed. George Bush may be a moran also but he certainly is not stupid enought to wait too long to sign a bill he strongly supports.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough*
Kevmath
10-22-2006, 09:00 PM
It was presented to the President on Oct. 3:

Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04954:@@@L&summ2=m&) Look under All Actions, go a little past halfway down the page.
JoseGonzlez
10-22-2006, 09:07 PM
sorry for the anger. frist was on to something when he banned poker. but seriously you think that you would be the first to figure this out when bushy has a zillion legal scholars working for him and all the media around him?
LotteryOrPoker
10-22-2006, 09:12 PM
No reason to jump on this guys case. He is just posting an idea and doesn't know any better. To the OP, if the President had not signed the bill, it would have become law anyway. The only time not signing the law results in a veto is if he doesn't sign a bill at the end of a Congressional session (this is a pocket veto).
Reef
10-22-2006, 09:25 PM
can mod plz lock this thread?
StellarWind
10-22-2006, 09:33 PM
Aside from everything else, Congress was not adjourned and no pocket veto is possible. Several earlier threads have discussed this point. By your (incorrect) date argument the unsigned bill became law on the 11th.
siccjay
10-22-2006, 09:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you stupid moran , the bill was presented to the President a few days after it was passed. October 13 was the last day it could be signed. George Bush may be a moran also but he certainly is not stupid enought to wait too long to sign a bill he strongly supports.

[/ QUOTE ]

*cough*

[/ QUOTE ]

*noob*
J.R.
10-22-2006, 09:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from everything else, Congress was not adjourned and no pocket veto is possible. Several earlier threads have discussed this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't change this analysis because the bill was signed timely but its unsettled whether an intersession "break" is an "adjournment" for purposes of the pocket veto. linky - no legislation/legal opinion has defined adjournment since (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf)

house done on sept 29 (http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html)

senate on 9/30 (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/calendars.htm)