|
|
#1
10-02-2006, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Bush not signing bill until November 7
Didnt see this posted anywhere.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1885255,00.html#article_continue Shares in online gaming firms, many of which are listed in London, are likely to suffer a mauling when markets open for trading today. PartyGaming, which floated on the London Stock Exchange last year, relies on the US for 85% of its revenue. Politicians in the US have been attempting to ban online gaming for more than a decade. The present legal framework was drawn up to cover telephone betting in the 1960s and the position of online gambling has been far from clear. The bill now only needs the approval of president George Bush, who is expected to sign it into law on November 7. Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the legislation to bolster popularity among conservative voters. Michael Bolcerek of the Poker Players Alliance in the US said the legislation "reeks of political gamesmanship". Several states have begun a crackdown on internet gaming. In July David Carruthers, then BetonSports chief executive, was arrested at Dallas airport on charges of racketeering, fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy. He has pleaded not guilty. Peter Dicks, the former chairman of Sportingbet, was set free on Friday after New York state governor George Pataki refused to order his extradition to Louisiana. 
|
|
#3
10-02-2006, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong - he has to sign it within 10 days. They probably mean October 7. [/ QUOTE ] I was going to say, November 7 sounds pretty good to me. Pocket veto, baby! Ship it!
|
|
#4
10-02-2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is wrong - he has to sign it within 10 days. They probably mean October 7. [/ QUOTE ] I was going to say, November 7 sounds pretty good to me. Pocket veto, baby! Ship it! [/ QUOTE ] You may be confused on how a pocket veto works. The President's ability to pocket veto a bill is limited to the final adjournment (sine die) of a Congress. Since the 109th Congress has a lame duck session after the election, this is not their final adjournment. Therefore, a pocket veto is not even relevant.
|
|
#5
10-02-2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong - he has to sign it within 10 days. They probably mean October 7. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it most likely would be October 7th. It has to be signed within 10 days of Congressional enactment (not counting Sundays, I believe). Because the bill is the Port Security bill, Bush would likely want to sign it on Saturday for press reasons -- it would be a lead item for the Sunday papers.
|
|
#6
10-02-2006, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
Out of curiosity, if Bush fails to sign it within the 10 days(ie he gets stuck playing candyland, too busy looking for wmds, etc.) Does the bill go back to square one? Obviously 99.999999999999999999999% it gets signed in the next 10 days, but if some crazy chain of events tied the president up does it go back to House + Congress for the lame duck session and as such have a chance to come back through without the IG language? This is not a reasonable thing to think would happen but is that how the system works or can bush just say "oops we'll sign it on day 12 anyways"
|
|
#7
10-02-2006, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
If he does not voice an objection to the bill within 10 days, it automatically becomes a law. If it were the final adjournment of the 109th Congress and he did not sign it within 10 days, it would become a "pocket veto" and die.
|
|
#8
10-02-2006, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
Let's say Bush, Cheney and Hastert and Ted Stevens (such a shame) all get shot. How far down the chain of succession would we need to go before we get to someone who might not sign this bill?
Purely out of idle curiosity of course.
|
|
#9
10-02-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
I think Bush has only used the veto once in his 6 painful years in office.
|
|
#10
10-02-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush not signing bill until November 7
All this stuff has shown me how ignorant I really am of the American legislative process. And I thought was pretty knowledgeable.
Not that Bush would use it, but does he not have the "line item veto" power?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
