For the first time since President Obama took office in 2009, Congress has overridden his veto.
The U.S. Senate voted 97-1 to override President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which would allow victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The lone dissenting vote was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who has "always had the president's back":
In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked "damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries" and "could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts." Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto. CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill's "grave implications for the national security of the United States" in a statement Wednesday.
The House of Representatives voted 348-to-77:
Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.
Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.
See also: The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 by the New York Times Editorial Board and this article in the Saudi Gazette.
Previously: President Obama to Veto Bill Allowing September 11 Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:54PM
OK, sure. I am somewhat ignorant of the finer points of the political system of a country half a world away. So sue me (subject to relevant dumb legislation).
So it wasn't Obama's legislation, it was his veto that got vetoed... whatever. My point still stands: This something that happens to most presidents. The last president to make it through two terms without congress overriding a veto was Kennedy half a century ago. Calling Obama a "lame duck" because of it is not accurate. That is all.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:52PM
sigh
when you dont do shit, you dont get shit vetoed...
virtually the only thing of any significant opposition was the health insurance profit guaranteed monopoly bill, which was essentially a rethug bill repackaged as a trojan horse to force us to buy shit insurance...
and yet that crap passed, too...
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM
when you dont do shit, you dont get shit vetoed...
Barack Obama sponsored 137 bills from January 4, 2005 until November 16, 2008. Two became law. [wikipedia.org]
Looks like he got 135 thing vetoed. I'm sure the Republicans' well documented strategy of unprecedented obstructionism had nothing to do with that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 30 2016, @04:15AM
Looks like he got 135 thing vetoed.
Veto means a right to reject a decision of a group, particularly a legislature.
I'm sure the Republicans' well documented strategy of unprecedented obstructionism had nothing to do with that.
I think it's more Obama and the Democrat Congressional leaders' remarkable incompetence. They had a window of two years in which to do just about anything they wanted. And the end result is a bunch of complaints about "unprecedented obstructionism". Oh well, it wasn't like they were going to pass anything I'd approve of anyway so I'm just not feeling your disapproval.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:29PM
The last president to make it through two terms without congress overriding a veto was Kennedy half a century ago.
Huh? Kennedy? Two terms? You do know he was inaugurated in 1961 and assassinated in 1963? He wasn't even president for three years.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:39PM
FYI - the last President to go a full two terms without a veto overridden was Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. (Also, it should be noted, at that point in history there had never been a veto override yet in the U.S.; vetos in general were quite rare under the first few presidents.)
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:34PM
And then Kennedy's vice president went on two complete the term, and a second one.
(Score: 2, Informative) by lcklspckl on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:39PM
Technically Obama is not a lame duck as his predecessor has not been elected, however in the minds of some Obama is not/was never president and they were waiting for the next president to take the seat and so colloquially it's correct. It doesn't mean ineffectual president or president that has had his veto over-ridden.
Here's a short instructional video on how bills become bills and then laws in the great ole U.S. o' A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0 [youtube.com] :P
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday September 30 2016, @12:26AM
Here's a short instructional video on how bills become bills and then laws in the great ole U.S. o' A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0 [youtube.com]
Thank you, sir! I'll see your Schoolhouse Rock and raise you a primer on amending the constitution [youtube.com]. ;)
And here's something for those who really want to see the sausage making in progress [youtube.com].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by lcklspckl on Friday September 30 2016, @01:16AM
Very instructive indeed. :)
I did mean successor in my original post about lame-duckery. Nothing like completely mucking the pedantry with the completely opposite word choice.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday September 30 2016, @08:27AM
Technically Obama is not a lame duck as his predecessor has not been elected
I'm pretty sure Bush was elected in 2004, even if the 2000 elections were somewhat dubious.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by lcklspckl on Friday September 30 2016, @06:26PM
Touché, human! You are correct, of course. I tried to correct myself, but it was too late.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheRaven on Monday October 03 2016, @12:10PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:08PM
OK, sure. I am somewhat ignorant of the finer points of the political system of a country half a world away. So sue me (subject to relevant dumb legislation).
So it wasn't Obama's legislation, it was his veto that got vetoed... whatever. My point still stands: This something that happens to most presidents. The last president to make it through two terms without congress overriding a veto was Kennedy half a century ago. Calling Obama a "lame duck" because of it is not accurate. That is all.
Since you're from elsewhere, I'll provide you with a little information.
Actually, Kennedy didn't even finish *one* term. He was assassinated before finishing his first term. Lyndon Baines Johnson (who was Vice President) finished Kennedy's first term and was elected to his own first term in November, 1964. Johnson did not seek re-election in 1968.
Calling President Obama a "lame duck" is unrelated to this particular event (the override of his veto). I'll explain.
First, a little background: Since we do *not* have a parliamentary system, we don't immediately form a new government after an election. Members of Congress who are elected (or re-elected) are sworn in to office on 1 January of the year following the election (terms are two years for members of the house of representatives, and six years for members of the senate) and the newly elected (or re-elected) president (who is limited to a maximum of two four-year terms) is sworn in on 20 January of the year following the election.
Since election day is on the first Tuesday of November, that means for about two months both the current president and the current congress are still in office, but given that the president (assuming it's a new president, as it will be early next year) and the congress will turn over, those folks don't have a whole lot of political capital during that time. Both the president and congress are generally referred to as "lame ducks" (more accurately, congress is termed to be in "lame duck session") for this reason.
However, the term "lame duck" is (IMHO) slightly misused here. Traditionally, it's used to describe a Congress (or a president), *after* the election, that is still in power until a new president or a new congress is sworn in. Given that Obama cannot run for a third term, the appellation is correct, but as I said, it's generally used after the election in November.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr