Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-time-for-everything dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:54PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:54PM (#407934) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:52PM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:52PM (#407966)

    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

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM (#408037) Journal

      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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 30 2016, @04:15AM (#408237) Journal

        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

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:29PM (#407987) Journal

    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

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:39PM (#407998) Journal

      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, Informative) by lcklspckl on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:39PM

    by lcklspckl (830) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:39PM (#408088)

    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

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday September 30 2016, @12:26AM (#408179) Homepage Journal

      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

        by lcklspckl (830) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:16AM (#408192)

        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

      by TheRaven (270) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:27AM (#408290) Journal

      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

        by lcklspckl (830) on Friday September 30 2016, @06:26PM (#408484)

        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

          by TheRaven (270) on Monday October 03 2016, @12:10PM (#409365) Journal
          I suspect that there is a universal rule of the Internet that whenever you italicise a single word in a sentence, that will be the one that contains the typo. If not, then please name the rule after me.
          --
          sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:08PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:08PM (#408156) Homepage Journal

    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