SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday March 17 2019, @07:12AM
from the at-least-the-House-and-Senate-agreed-on-something dept.
from the at-least-the-House-and-Senate-agreed-on-something dept.
breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/15/donald-trump-vetoes-attempt-to-block-national-emergency
President Donald Trump vetoed a bill designed to block his emergency declaration at the Southern Border on Friday, in a ceremony at the White House.
“Today, I am vetoing this resolution,” Trump said. “Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution and I have the duty to veto it. And I’m very proud to veto it.”
Also at CBS News, CNBC, and USA Today.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Vetoes Attempt to Block his Declaration of a National Emergency
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 127 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Do not use if foil seal is broken.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 17 2019, @10:57PM (7 children)
I dunno. I kind of like seeing them actually passing things they're not sure will be signed. If they're sure ahead of time it's because of backroom dealing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @12:20AM (6 children)
Says who? Does any bill that has a veto-proof majority necessarily mean that there's, as you say, "back room dealing?"
I mean that a bill could be, well, you know, in the best interests of the nation and its people. And if it is, then shouldn't all of our legislators support it?
Just a crazy thought.
A united Congress *working together* (a novel concept these days) to pass legislation despite opposition from the Executive branch would be a welcome change from the "my party right or wrong" business as usual shenanigans.
I'd hoped that *before* (or certainly during) the most recent shutdown, that Congress would pass a CR [wikipedia.org] keeping (or reopening) the government up and running with a veto-proof majority. That, alas, proved too much for the weasels on the Hill.
Truth be told, I'd have preferred to see this last bill passed with veto-proof majorities in the first place.
I thought (and it may still end up being the case, but I'm not holding my breath) that since the administration is attempting to spend money Congress hasn't appropriated for that purpose might just be enough to get these folks to override the veto.
Like I said, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 18 2019, @03:15AM (5 children)
There essentially aren't any bills with veto-proof majorities that say anything more substantial than "Breathing air is good." I'd quite like it if this were not the case but they never ask me what I think. Not putting the requirement to ask me beforehand in the constitution was a gross oversight by the founding fathers but nobody's perfect.
Frankly, I'm hoping it honks enough congress critters off that they start pulling powers from the executive branch in a bipartisan manner but I'm not going to hold my breath.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @04:09AM (4 children)
Really?
I think the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act [wikipedia.org] did a little more than say "breathing air is good."
And I think even you would agree that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 [wikipedia.org] was fairly substantial.
Overriding Reagan's veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 [wikipedia.org] was also far from just window dressing.
Congress also overrode Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act [wikipedia.org].
I'd also point out that a number of appropriations bills were also overridden since the Clean Water Act in 1973. I'll leave the details of those up to you.
So. No. Veto overrides have happened WRT substantial legislation. Repeatedly. I didn't go back before 1973 because I imagine I've made my point, no?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 18 2019, @05:31AM (3 children)
No, you haven't. You had to go back over forty years to get that many instances. We're not talking about forty years ago when a goodly majority of the people were perfectly willing to listen to ideas not their own and even cross party lines in their voting habits. We're talking about the hyper-polarized partisan environment we currently live in. Unless you get a veto-proof majority entirely of one party, you're not passing anything with a veto-proof majority. Maybe if we get bombed. Maybe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @11:16AM (2 children)
And that's the problem, isn't it? I say we do something about it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 18 2019, @11:36AM (1 child)
Prison would interfere with my fishing. It'll have to be voting unless they cheese me off to a pretty epic level.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 18 2019, @01:06PM
Works for me. I have a 50+ year Cal Ripken-like streak of never going to jail working. I'd like to keep that streak up too, as it would interfere with much more than just my fishing.
I totally get partisan politics, and there really are partisan policy differences.
It just seems ridiculous that folks who are elected to represent us sell us down the river to support "their" side *first* rather than focusing on what's best for, in order, their constituency, the nation, and then their party.
You and I are gettin' old, so I imagine you remember Ronnie Raygun and Tip O'Neill [wikipedia.org] (link for the young'uns who don't recall). As much as I disliked both of those guys (but not as much as they hated each other), they made a point to get past that on several occasions to do what was best for the nation.
After Billy Boy got into office, and the 'R's took control of Congress, we had a taste of what we now see all the time now from that piece of shit Newt [wikipedia.org] and his flunkies.
That's not to say Billy Boy was all sweetness and light either. He sold us down the river to get *something* done with Burgermeister Meisterburger over in the House in full "my way or the highway" mode. And, predictably, the 'D's eventually followed suit.
It's a sad state of affairs, and I'd appreciate it if you did vote, Buzzard.
But just vote. I'd be afraid for anyone who ended up in jail with you. :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr