SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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