Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Pocket veto
Languages : en
Pages : 130

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Pocket veto
Languages : en
Pages : 44

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Pocket veto
Languages : en
Pages : 114

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0

Get Book Here

Book Description
The Constitution provides that any bill not returned by the President "within ten Days (Sundays excepted)" shall become law, "unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law." This instrument of presidential power, known as the "pocket veto," was first used in 1812 by President James Madison. Unlike the regular veto, which is subject to a congressional override, a pocket veto is "absolute" because it is not returned to Congress. Beginning in 1929, several judicial decisions attempted to clarify when an adjournment by Congress would "prevent" the President from returning a veto. Several cases during the Nixon administration appeared to restrict the pocket veto to a final adjournment of Congress at the end of the second session, and that understanding was accepted by the Ford and Carter administrations. Under this political accommodation, Presidents would not use the pocket veto in the middle of a session (intrasession vetoes) or between the first and the second sessions (intersession vetoes). However, that agreement has not been followed by the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. President Ronald Reagan issued a pocket veto late in 1981 and 1983 (at the end of the first sessions), and President George Bush also used intersession pocket vetoes late in 1989 and 1991. President Bill Clinton, in 2000, used three intrasession pocket vetoes. The pocket vetoes by Presidents Bush and Clinton were unusual in the sense that the vetoes were returned to Congress. Evidently the inter- and intrasession adjournments by Congress did not "prevent" the return of the vetoes. If the President returned these "pocket vetoes," could Congress attempt an override? The answer is that Congress several times has taken override votes on these types of pocket vetoes. Efforts to legislate the meaning of "adjournment" have thus far been unsuccessful, nor has there been any definitive judicial ruling to clarify the constitutional issue, although court rulings have established important parameters for the pocket veto. As a result, the scope of the pocket veto power has been left largely to practice and to political understandings developed by the executive and legislative branches.

Author: Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Committee on Federal Legislation
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Pocket veto
Languages : en
Pages : 24

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 46

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. 5
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Government publications
Languages : en
Pages : 152

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: Jonathan Lurie
Publisher: University Press of Kansas
ISBN: 0700633391
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 186

Get Book Here

Book Description
According to the US Constitution, if a bill is not returned to Congress by the president within ten days of receiving it and Congress has adjourned, the bill is effectively vetoed. The so-called pocket veto dates at least as far back as the presidency of James Madison (1808–1816), but the constitutionality of its use had not been considered by the Supreme Court until Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States was decided in 1929, during the last year of Chief Justice Taft’s tenure. Despite responding to a situation in American Indian law, the Pocket Veto Case is notable for the fact that its final decision had nothing whatsoever to do with Indian law. The Okanogan Tribe is barely mentioned at all in the Court’s unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Edward Sanford, which ultimately concluded that the pocket veto is a constitutional exercise of presidential authority. The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case explores the underlying tension between congressional authority and the executive prerogative. Especially today, with such tension very much in evidence, it becomes all the more important to understand how and why the Constitution actually appears to encourage it. Studying Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States and use of the pocket veto provides an excellent example of the tension between Congress and the president.

Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Separation of Powers
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Pocket veto
Languages : en
Pages : 254

Get Book Here

Book Description

Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Rules
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Executive-legislative relations
Languages : en
Pages : 32

Get Book Here

Book Description