House fails to override veto

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush expressed optimism Wednesday about a possible deal with Democrats on the war funding bill, but neither side seemed closer to compromise.

"I'm confident, with goodwill on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements," Bush said, a day after his veto of a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted coolly to a GOP proposal to break the deadlock.

Republicans have expressed a willingness to put benchmarks for progress on Iraq's government, as long as there is no U.S. withdrawal time frame, Pelosi said. "Benchmarks without teeth are, what, a conversation?" Pelosi asked.

Bush has invited congressional leaders to a White House meeting Wednesday afternoon.

Shortly before the meeting, the House failed to override Bush's veto. The 222-203 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority it would take to override a presidential veto.

Earlier Wednesday, give and take on the House floor showed how far apart the two sides are.

"Now into the fifth year of a failed policy, this administration should get a clue," Pelosi said. "It's not working."

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-California, replied, "You've made your point. You had your dog-and-pony show. You've posed for political holy pictures on TV. Now what is your plan to support the troops?"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/congress.iraq/index.html

_________________________________________

Now what?

[TheEschaton]

I wonder if there should be a question about whether there should be a lower standard for overriding a veto. If Congress is the "law making" body, and the President is the "law enforcing" body, why does the Pres get such unlimited power over the making of laws? Considering the partisanship of the congress, if there's either a Dem or Rep President, getting 67 Senators and 290 Representatives to support anything is impossible.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Because he's the decider.

[Artha]

Checks and balances.

[TheEschaton]

How is this check in comparison to the checks afforded to Congress. One man can override a 535 person body, and prevent a law that the majority thinks should be a law, from becoming a law.

Meanwhile, 50 Senators + 218 Reps can deny a judicial nomination. Which the Pres can just get around by making a recess appointment. Since Congress apparently doesn't need to approve of wars any more, this seems to be the only check left for them.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

I wonder if there should be a question about whether there should be a lower standard for overriding a veto. If Congress is the "law making" body, and the President is the "law enforcing" body, why does the Pres get such unlimited power over the making of laws? Considering the partisanship of the congress, if there's either a Dem or Rep President, getting 67 Senators and 290 Representatives to support anything is impossible.

-TheE-

He doesn't have unlimited power since the Congress can overturn a veto with 60% vote.

Let's change the Constitution because it doesn't serve your purpose.

[TheEschaton]

When has any Congress been able to muster a two thirds majority to override a Presidential veto? By its very nature, the things the President vetoes are going to be contentious, and thus split in the debate - a 66% majority to override the veto when 50% was all that was needed to pass strikes me somewhat oddly.

-TheE-

[Artha]

By its very nature, the things the President vetoes are going to be contentious, and thus split in the debate

So a law 49% of senators (and, in a perfect world, 49% of the country) think shouldn't be a law won't be? Good.

[Some Rogue]

When has any Congress been able to muster a two thirds majority to override a Presidential veto?
-TheE-

Well...at least 106 times.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

[Gan]

There have been a total of 106 Vetos overridden by Congress in the time period of 1789 to 2000. This was out of a total of 1484 regular vetos and 1066 pocket vetos, for a combined total of 2550 vetos.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes.pdf


Edited:
Damn, outgoogled!!!

[Kranar]

I wonder if there should be a question about whether there should be a lower standard for overriding a veto. If Congress is the "law making" body, and the President is the "law enforcing" body, why does the Pres get such unlimited power over the making of laws? Considering the partisanship of the congress, if there's either a Dem or Rep President, getting 67 Senators and 290 Representatives to support anything is impossible.


What would that lower standard be? Also, remember that a legal system should be based on sound principles and not contingencies. Saying that the standard should be lowered because right now we have 2 major political parties who seem really opposed to one another is not a solid principle to begin tampering with the Constitution.

2/3rd majority is not unlimited power, it's actually fairly conservative considering that the President was elected by the nation as a whole to be its Executive. The fact that the Congress is split almost 50/50 right now indicates that Congress needs to learn to better work together in passing legislation. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the President be able to step in there and overturn legislation that was passed by a narrow majority.

[Latrinsorm]

Bush has the fewest vetoes since James Garfield (who was President for about 80 seconds).

WHAT A VIOLATION OF CHECKS AND BALANCES OH MY SWEET JESUS

[Hulkein]

When has any Congress been able to muster a two thirds majority to override a Presidential veto? By its very nature, the things the President vetoes are going to be contentious, and thus split in the debate - a 66% majority to override the veto when 50% was all that was needed to pass strikes me somewhat oddly.

-TheE-

Civil Rights Act of 1866. I only know that specifically from my Con Law final yesterday, heh.

[Stanley Burrell]

Iraq isn't a disaster for GWB if troop withdrawal sentiment and action doesn't fall under the term of his presidency.

What I'm actually surprised about is that even the most left wing news outlets mention this as being only the second time that Bush has used his veto power, which, having dealt with the effects of his other vetoes, I personally feel is weird? I mean, no one is going to bring up, i.e., Bush vetoes tied into the FDA or Surveillance Act as a blaring headline in lieu of this callable, lying-in-wait-style, deliberate-style media overhype.

In other news, Dubya's sentence structure in his responsive SotU, after his ghost writers put it into podium paper prolly months and months ago, reminded me of exactly why I do not watch SotUs anymore. It's seriously embarrassing.

All in all, it would've been really funny if he let this pass.

[Sean of the Thread]

He doesn't have unlimited power since the Congress can overturn a veto with 60% vote.

Let's change the Constitution because it doesn't serve your purpose.

Bingo.

[Stanley Burrell]

..Because search and seizure hasn't been bastardize twelve trillion times..

[Parkbandit]

Iraq isn't a disaster for GWB if troop withdrawal sentiment and action doesn't fall under the term of his presidency.

What I'm actually surprised about is that even the most left wing news outlets mention this as being only the second time that Bush has used his veto power, which, having dealt with the effects of his other vetoes, I personally feel is weird? I mean, no one is going to bring up, i.e., Bush vetoes tied into the FDA or Surveillance Act as a blaring headline in lieu of this callable, lying-in-wait-style, deliberate-style media overhype.

In other news, Dubya's sentence structure in his responsive SotU, after his ghost writers put it into podium paper prolly months and months ago, reminded me of exactly why I do not watch SotUs anymore. It's seriously embarrassing.

All in all, it would've been really funny if he let this pass.

Someone who can't post a coherent thought together for a simple forum probably shouldn't criticize anyone about sentence structure.

[Parkbandit]

Well...at least 106 times.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes


LOL..

pwned hard.

[Mabus]

Meanwhile, 50 Senators + 218 Reps can deny a judicial nomination.

Representitives have nothing to do with Judicial confirmation.

[Stanley Burrell]

Someone who can't post a coherent thought together for a simple forum probably shouldn't criticize anyone about sentence structure.

#A) I'd decapitate myself with a plastic spork if I sounded anything like I post.

2) This staunch, bespectacled conservative approves and demands your vision correction to help you in your plight:

http://z.about.com/d/inventors/1/0/0/X/Franklinglasses.jpg

3) I have to take a dump.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not really seeing how this is news. Sort of expected. Congress, on both sides, making noise for itself.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not really seeing how this is news. Sort of expected. Congress, on both sides, making noise for itself.


/agree

It's politics as usual.

[Mabus]

If Congress really wants the Iraq war to end they have a few options.

1) They could pass the exact same legislation and harp on GW for "Not supporting our troops" for his continued veto. After a period of time the money would dry up and the troops would have to be brought home, or other programs and operations of the military would suffer.

2) They could pass a new measure recinding the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", and/or declare that the goals of the original resolution have been met. This would leave the president 90 days to withdraw or face a court challenge.

3) They could just not pass any bill releasing funds for the war, and pass a bill that states "funds not specifically allocated for Iraq are not allowed to be used for operations in Iraq other then to safely withdraw US troops". This would place anyone using funds for any military operations in Iraq in methods not specifically outlined in legal jeopardy.

There are certainly other methods available to them constitutionally. These were the three that came to mind the quickest. Of these three # 2 seems the one with the most balls with #1 being close behind. I do not expect this Congress to have the guts to follow through with any of them.

Each would be vetoed, I am sure, though that leaves a modified version of #3 as the most likely scenario for Congress to force a withdraw.

[Gan]

In absence of any bills from the Democrats, there would be a plethora of Republican bills submitted, with media attention the Democrats would NOT want this close to the 2008 elections. It would be political suicide for them to appear to sacrifice the troops or the war for their political cause.

I see a compromise in the works until a change takes place in 2008.

[Seran]

In absence of any bills from the Democrats, there would be a plethora of Republican bills submitted, with media attention the Democrats would NOT want this close to the 2008 elections. It would be political suicide for them to appear to sacrifice the troops or the war for their political cause.

I see a compromise in the works until a change takes place in 2008.

It was Bush's sacrifice initially for diverting troops into Iraq on unproven intelligence. It's bullshit to spin trying to halt an unneccesary war as being detrimental to the troops when you were the one who sent them!

The one is a Mabus said, continue to insert withdrawl language into each appropriations measure until Bush signs it. Popular support is for a withdrawl, and no amount of White House spin is going to change that.

Hell, the bill he vetoed was non-binding anyways, fool should've approved it.

[Back]

He could have accepted it and if things turned out the way they spin it blamed them dems and left office less of a failure.

[Latrinsorm]

I get that you don't like the guy, but do you really think he'd consider abandoning a country just to save face?

[Back]

I get that you don't like the guy, but do you really think he'd consider abandoning a country just to save face?

I don’t know the guy but I strongly disagree with his decisions.

[Gan]

It was Bush's sacrifice initially for diverting troops into Iraq on unproven intelligence. It's bullshit to spin trying to halt an unneccesary war as being detrimental to the troops when you were the one who sent them!
Wow, dont throw an anuerism when you hop on your "Bush lied and people died" rant next time. Sorry if you dont agree with the politics behind whats happening now and what the viable alternatives are since the Democrats do not have enough votes to muster an override. The fact remains that the Democrats will continue to appear to some people as abandoning the war, cutting and running, giving up (see Reid: The War Is Lost), and now cutting the funding over an inability to reach a compromise with Bush. This image, perception, whatever you call it, will not help them come election time, and could, if allowed to mushroom out of control, harm them to a point where not only will they lose the white house bid, but also the next round of congressional elections. In fact, what happens if it is perceived in such a bad light that it sways popular opinion in favor of supporting the war. Will you still fall back on your concept of saying "the people want our troops out"?


The one is a Mabus said, continue to insert withdrawl language into each appropriations measure until Bush signs it. Popular support is for a withdrawl, and no amount of White House spin is going to change that.
Only if they can attach withdrawal language into a Bill that either the GOP or Bush has to have passed, so a tradeoff is made. Otherwise continue to expect another big VETO. If you have not learned one thing about Bush, its that he stays the course, for good or bad, he stands by his convictions.


Hell, the bill he vetoed was non-binding anyways, fool should've approved it.
If it were nonbinding, then why was it even written into the bill? What goal would it have accomplished for the Democrat party? Why not leave it out and get the funds approved without delay?

[Mabus]

The one is a Mabus said, continue to insert withdrawl language into each appropriations measure until Bush signs it.

I just want to be very clear that I do not support a withdrawal that would leave Iraq in a total state of chaos. I was merely offering three possibilities for Congress going forward.

I am of the opinion "We broke it, now we have to fix it." when it comes to Iraq. Whether this calls for involvement of the UN, other parties from the region or some solution that has never been proposed I have no idea. I just do not believe we can leave it the mess we made it.

That would be un-American, to me.

[radamanthys]

Hence why immediate troop removal is bad.

[Seran]

If it were nonbinding, then why was it even written into the bill? What goal would it have accomplished for the Democrat party? Why not leave it out and get the funds approved without delay?

Because there wasn't enough support in the Senate to clear the version of the bill that'd put a hard deadline on troop withdrawl. Honestly though, I see this as a failing on behalf of the Democrat party, and of the liberals as you put it to not be able to garner enough support for this version from the moderate Republicans.

Regardless, the only losers in this are the troops and the Iraqi people. One because they're caught in the middle of a irresolute and stubborn Commander and Chief and a nation who'se given the control of Congress to a party who rivals him.

The other, because through our actions we've fostered civil war in a country that was previously kept into check by an iron-fisted (and wrong!) dictator. Iraq was just listed as a 'place of concern' for human rights violations due to it's government and it's religious groups victimizing one another.

*edited for spelling, it sucks.

[Back]

Wow, dont throw an anuerism when you hop on your "Bush lied and people died" rant next time. Sorry if you dont agree with the politics behind whats happening now and what the viable alternatives are since the Democrats do not have enough votes to muster an override. The fact remains that the Democrats will continue to appear to some people as abandoning the war, cutting and running, giving up (see Reid: The War Is Lost), and now cutting the funding over an inability to reach a compromise with Bush. This image, perception, whatever you call it, will not help them come election time, and could, if allowed to mushroom out of control, harm them to a point where not only will they lose the white house bid, but also the next round of congressional elections. In fact, what happens if it is perceived in such a bad light that it sways popular opinion in favor of supporting the war. Will you still fall back on your concept of saying "the people want our troops out"?

Yes, yes, it could rain like fallout from a suitcase nuke set off by terrorists in a major American city.

You know, we have Republicans and their supporters in the press who say things like “if the dems win, terrorists win!” and “if the dems win, there will be another attack!”

You know my biggest fear? That this administration has strengthened the resolve of people who would actually attempt that (Osama is still on the loose) so I can say, from my opinion, if this administration keeps “staying the course” and the Republican party keeps “staying the course” we are on a course for a real mushroom cloud in this country.

[Tsa`ah]

The constitution outlines what it will take to override and amend the constitution for two very big reasons.

To see that the majority are not ruled by a minority and that the minority isn't pigeon holed by the majority.

This is why we also have elections every 2 years ... it's the check and balance of the people. What may be the majority opinion before a vote, may not be the majority opinion at the time of the vote ... hence we're given the opportunity to put people in office that will vote in a manner that really reflects the majority view.

Though this really hasn't happened long term ... ever ... we're still given the power to see it is carried out if only a minority of us actually use it.

[Gan]

President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=George+W.+Bush) and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Iraq).

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=United+States) forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000146/) (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=U.S.+Armed+Forces) role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/) (Calif.) said after a White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=The+White+House) meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

Bush said he is "confident that we can reach agreement," and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Stephen+Hadley) and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html?tid=informline&subject=Capitol+Hill) today to sit down with leaders of both parties.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517_pf.html

[Latrinsorm]

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,"But remember, she cares about the troops. :(

[Back]

But remember, she cares about the troops. :(

This burns me up.

We have a newly elected congress who has worked together to get the troops the money, added more for supplies and vet care, set benchmarks on the Iraqi government so our troops could come home... and somehow Congress are the villains while our president denies our troops of all of that.

Its not you, Latrin.

[Artha]

Because they'd rather play politics with the money than compromise on their inflammitory language and posturing.

[Gan]

I really want to see if anyone reminds Harry Reid about his "Ram it down his [Bush] throat" comment when he was asked about post-veto ideas.

[Back]

Because they'd rather play politics with the money than compromise on their inflammitory language and posturing.

Compromise? You are being facetious again.


I really want to see if anyone reminds Harry Reid about his "Ram it down his [Bush] throat" comment when he was asked about post-veto ideas.

That was Biden who said that and promised in the recent democratic debate that he could control his “gaff machine.”

[Sean of the Thread]

This burns me up.

We have a newly elected congress who has worked together to get the troops the money, added more for supplies and vet care, set benchmarks on the Iraqi government so our troops could come home... and somehow Congress are the villains while our president denies our troops of all of that.

Its not you, Latrin.

You've been very delusional on our "newly elected congress" since the get go. At least you're consistent about something.

[Gan]

Ahh, Biden... Reid... they're all beginning to look alike to me when I see their mugs on the front page.

[Stanley Burrell]

Would there be a way for congress to stabilize a troop size with regard to Iraq?

I mean, I see a "timetable" as political as it's been pointed out from both sides of the fence. I feel that it is good politics -- And that its implementation would actually mean, for example, a decreased upscale in troop deployment. And that in no way whatsoever would a timetable for troop withdrawal actually shadow anything as to what it means when put on paper that far away from the battlefield.

When Bush and the speakers discuss a "middleground," I truly believe that it would almost identically reflect any trickledown legislation passed under a "full-fledged" troop withdrawal timetable.

There is no way we can blanket Iraq in soldiers. If we stabilized our numbers and push for funding intelligence + financially political reparations in Turkish, Kuwaiti, etc. training bases to *in any way that we can* better the foundation of precursors to troop effiency; not specifically tied into grunts on the field, but rather human relations in offshore quasi-Iraqi-related, and fully-Middle Eastern-related military etiquette facilities, then that, I feel, would boast our supposed strength moreso than line formation in urban assault protocol.

As strongly as I believe that money for troops should be made available to those working in the field as immediately as can humanly be done, I also feel that there desperately, desperately needs to be some sort of treasurers/financial overseers at intervals between government and military where such nonexistence is hurting the distribution of wealth, and what I truly feel is the respective welfare of our troops. If we've learned anything in the past seven years, it's been that money, especially tied into political offshoots of the White House, has talked way louder than it ever has throughout the entire political ballpark (and what I personally feel ever should've): We have to target the crux of this, imho. Yeah, easier said than done.

[Back]

You've been very delusional on our "newly elected congress" since the get go. At least you're consistent about something.

Excuse me? Whats delusional about the 110th doing more for the National Security and the people of this country than the 108th and 109th combined?

Kowtowing to a supreme leader and writing blank checks for a never ending war while reaping lobbyist dollars?

[Methais]

Yes, yes, it could rain like fallout from a suitcase nuke set off by terrorists in a major American city.

Someone's been watching this season of 24.

[Back]

Someone's been watching this season of 24.

Nah, I just live in Ground Zero and like to be informed. A suitcase nuke has a radius measured in feet as opposed to miles.

[Parkbandit]

Kowtowing to a supreme leader and writing blank checks for a never ending war...


Yes Nancy.. we've heard you say this time and time again. Get a new soundbite.

Of course, I had to delete the lobbyist money part.. simply because she would never say that was bad, as she does it just as much.

[Back]

Yes Nancy.. we've heard you say this time and time again. Get a new soundbite.

Of course, I had to delete the lobbyist money part.. simply because she would never say that was bad, as she does it just as much.

Prove it or its libel.

[Parkbandit]

Kowtowing to a supreme leader and writing blank checks for a never ending war while reaping lobbyist dollars?


Prove it or it's libel.

See? That is quintessential Liberalism. It's fine for you to use such terms but when they are used against you, then HOLY SHIT, LIBEL! SLANDER! CALL THE MEDIA!

[TheEschaton]

I don't think Jack Abrahamoff and his activities, are in the realm of libel and conjecture nowadays.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

I don't think Jack Abrahamoff and his activities, are in the realm of libel and conjecture nowadays.

-TheE-

Oh, so you do have proof that Jack Abrahamoff gave illegal money to George W. Bush.

I shouldn't have even questioned it. My bad.

It's weird how lobbyists only give money to Republicans. Imagine the power they would have if they gave to both parties.

Thankfully, you don't have such corruption on your side of the aisle. Be thankful everyone in the Democratic party is above reproach and suspicion.

[TheEschaton]

I think Backlash only insinuated that Republicans were getting paid off, not GW specifically.

And I'm sure we've got corruption on our side - just not to the extent you guys have.

[Parkbandit]

I think Backlash only insinuated that Republicans were getting paid off, not GW specifically.

And I'm sure we've got corruption on our side - just not to the extent you guys have.


LOL.

Haven't we already had this conversation once before? I think it was proven that corrupt politicians aren't a member of just one party. Ask Harry, or Barbara, or William.

There's plenty of corruption to go around.

[Stanley Burrell]

Bush was never even spotted anywhere near Abramoff and didn't know him, as he has vigilantly maintained.

http://www.bartcop.com/abramoff-bush2.jpg

[Hulkein]

Honestly, how many people do you think he meets a day?

[Warriorbird]

We don't know. He used an executive order to prevent people from seeing who visits him because he has nothing to hide.

[Back]

I think Backlash only insinuated that Republicans were getting paid off, not GW specifically.

And I'm sure we've got corruption on our side - just not to the extent you guys have.


LOL.

Haven't we already had this conversation once before? I think it was proven that corrupt politicians aren't a member of just one party. Ask Harry, or Barbara, or William.

There's plenty of corruption to go around.


Bush was never even spotted anywhere near Abramoff and didn't know him, as he has vigilantly maintained.

http://www.bartcop.com/abramoff-bush2.jpg


Honestly, how many people do you think he meets a day?


We don't know. He used an executive order to prevent people from seeing who visits him because he has nothing to hide.

rofl, yeah, the “all politicians do it” cover again.

[Parkbandit]

rofl, yea, the "only Republicans are corrupt" bullshit again.

[Warriorbird]

I like tacit admittances that Republicans are.

:)

[Parkbandit]

Unlike most of the ignorant liberals on this message board, I don't see someone as guilty or not guilty due to their party affiliation. I don't see them as corrupt or honest because they belong to a certain political party.

Basing the honor and honesty of an individual by that makes you a dumbfuck in my book... and so far the dumbfucks are lining up as usual.

[Methais]

I don't think Jack Abrahamoff and his activities, are in the realm of libel and conjecture nowadays.

Please tell me there isn't really someone named Jack Abrahamoff

[Gan]

LOL.

Haven't we already had this conversation once before? I think it was proven that corrupt politicians aren't a member of just one party. Ask Harry, or Barbara, or William.

There's plenty of corruption to go around.

Dont forget Dianne Feinstien...

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=24607

:whistle:

[Back]

Corruption, I will admit, is where Republicans pwn Democrats.

Way to go guys.

[Parkbandit]

Corruption, I will admit, is where Republicans pwn Democrats.

Way to go guys.

And thus, you prove my point. Perfectly.

You are a political joke...er I mean pundit

[Seran]

Now Dianne Feinstien has some real skeletons in her closet, which is one of the reasons why it's so laughable whenever she tries to champion anything involving financial culpability for federal employees.