It doesn’t actually change anything. A pocket veto only works if Congress is out of session in the next 10 days. Basically, the president has 10 days to sign or veto legislation. If 10 days passes...
It doesn’t actually change anything. A pocket veto only works if Congress is out of session in the next 10 days.
Basically, the president has 10 days to sign or veto legislation. If 10 days passes and Congress is not in session, then the bill dies. If 10 days passes and Congress is in session, it automatically passes.
I thought it would be a weird procedural quirk but it's literally written like that in the US constitution, that's silly
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.
I thought it would be a weird procedural quirk but it's literally written like that in the US constitution, that's silly
Nah, they knew they'd need to handle a situation where the executive essentially refuses his responsibility. If the president doesn't like a bill, he can beat it, which allows the Senate to...
Nah, they knew they'd need to handle a situation where the executive essentially refuses his responsibility. If the president doesn't like a bill, he can beat it, which allows the Senate to overrule him with a 2/3 majority. But if the president knows he'll get overruled and still doesn't want the bill to become a law, what if he just ignores it? How does Congress check his power in that case?
This forces the president to make a decision on (most) bills. The pocket veto still happens from time to time but that's a failure of Congress's scheduling.
The failure IMO is how scheduling is controlled by the Speaker (or Senate Pro Tempore) without any vote to reign in a rouge agent. I suppose they thought such a move would be political suicide for...
The failure IMO is how scheduling is controlled by the Speaker (or Senate Pro Tempore) without any vote to reign in a rouge agent. I suppose they thought such a move would be political suicide for elections, but I suppose the constitution was made in a time where they only expected educated (white, male) landowners to vote.
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure...
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." - Madison
They absolutely recognized the futility of trying to maintain a democracy when the the people in charge do stoop to this level, and the people in charge are a reflection of the electorate.
Fair enough, view. Pretty much any civilized society needs to run on some form of trust and not litigate every little detail.I do, at the same time, think more checks are needed as a governmental...
Fair enough, view. Pretty much any civilized society needs to run on some form of trust and not litigate every little detail.I do, at the same time, think more checks are needed as a governmental body grows.
But we may have never theoretically hit such a point if the house grew as Madison expected it to back in the day. Or if the courts expanded to keep match with the number of districts. So part of this was breaking established systems
Does anyone have any insight on what this means vis a vis a rift in the republican party, or some measure of pulling back from the more extreme elements? Or is this just something for the...
Does anyone have any insight on what this means vis a vis a rift in the republican party, or some measure of pulling back from the more extreme elements?
Or is this just something for the midterms? I can't imagine it will come into effect quickly enough to have a felt effect before then.
I don't think this is a rift. It's just the president putting Republicans between a rock and a hard place because he's totally out of touch with the of the amount of power he still has over...
I don't think this is a rift. It's just the president putting Republicans between a rock and a hard place because he's totally out of touch with the of the amount of power he still has over Congress versus their constituents. He wants Congress to pass the save act, which is deeply unpopular with constituents because it disenfranchises a lot of people, not just Democrats. If has no chance of passing because of that. This housing bill is popular broadly though.
So republicans can vote for a bill that is wildly unpopular because it takes away some of their constituents right to vote and risk the ire of a president who really doesn't have much power over their political careers anymore, or they can call the presidents bluff and let him do what he will, because they know if he vetoes the housing bill, the blame will be placed squarely on him.
He used to be able to get his way and force Congress to pass laws that their constituents don't like by threatening to primary him. The further along he is in his last presidential term, the fewer congressional elections he'll be president during, which means he has less influence over political careers. Right now, representatives only have to deal with trump as an active political force for one more election, and it's an election that his party seems poised to badly lose because of him. After that, his power to threaten congresspeople at primaries greatly diminishes. I think we'll start to see a lot more of these clashes between Congress and the president as time goes on because of that, even if they manage to hold a majority somehow.
It's like if you took your family out to eat, and the owner of the restaurant was like "I'll only bring out the appetizers you ordered for your family if you make them eat these bowls of diarrhea too, and if you don't, they'll blame you for not getting their appetizers" and then you're like "uh, no thanks. The appetizers aren't really worth eating diarrhea. We just won't come to this restaurant anymore. Also, they're the ones who picked this restaurant in the first place, so they're not going to blame me for not bringing their appetizers, they're going to blame you"
This analogy is mostly true, except the family watches a show every day that tells them that they love eating diarrhea which is chock full of vitamins and will make Jesus love you. Also the owner...
This analogy is mostly true, except the family watches a show every day that tells them that they love eating diarrhea which is chock full of vitamins and will make Jesus love you. Also the owner is handing you $3,000 as he says it. He got the money from the diarrhea vendor.
The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a landmark housing bill, notching a rare bipartisan accomplishment ahead of the midterm elections and clearing the way for President Trump to sign the most significant piece of housing legislation in 36 years.
The bill’s passage, by a lopsided 358-to-32 vote, ended months of sparring between the House and the Senate over a sprawling measure that aims to tackle the housing crisis by boosting supply in a country facing an acute shortage of new homes. The Senate passed its version of the same bill Monday, by a vote of 85 to 5.
[...]
With dozens of provisions, the 21st Century Road to Housing Act aims to touch communities across the country, addressing rural and urban needs as part of a strategy to eventually bring down housing costs. It loosens federal regulations, making it easier, faster and cheaper to build; eases lending rules; rewards communities that build; delivers aid to communities reeling from disasters; and, in a policy that proved to be one of the biggest flash points but was favored by Mr. Trump, sets new limits on the role institutional investors can play in the market.
[...]
Chief among the sticking points was a provision to check institutional investors, which had been crafted in negotiations among White House officials, Senator Tim Scott, the South Carolina Republican who leads the Banking Committee, and Ms. Warren.
The measure prohibits corporate entities from owning more than 350 existing single-family homes, although it does not require them to sell homes purchased before the measure became law. A stricter proposal that would have required investors to sell single-family homes built explicitly as rentals after seven years was dropped; it had prompted a backlash by home builders and affordable housing advocates, who feared it would discourage new home construction.
[...]
The bill tackles the crisis from different angles. For example, manufactured homes, which are built in a factory and arrive at a site on a truck, will no longer have to be built on a steel chassis to meet federal standards, a change that could shave thousands of dollars of the cost of these homes, and expand the types of designs factories can build. The bill also loosens lending rules for these homes and provides grants to communities to repair existing ones, which are often cheaper and faster to build than stick-built homes.
[...]
The bill also makes new construction of affordable housing eligible for certain federal grants; cuts requirements around environmental reviews to make it easier for communities to build faster; and offers funding for communities that are building housing to improve infrastructure.
And it loosens regulations overseeing community banks and makes it easier to get small mortgages of less than $100,000, an issue important in rural communities where housing costs are lower.
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bipartisan bill aiming to address affordability by increasing housing supply and homeownership, can now either be vetoed by Trump or signed into law. Absent the president’s signature, the bill will become law with no action after 10 days not counting Sundays — around July 10.
Trump abruptly calls off signing ceremony for housing bill, blindsiding Republicans
It doesn’t actually change anything. A pocket veto only works if Congress is out of session in the next 10 days.
Basically, the president has 10 days to sign or veto legislation. If 10 days passes and Congress is not in session, then the bill dies. If 10 days passes and Congress is in session, it automatically passes.
It’s the latter.
Who came up with this system
I thought it would be a weird procedural quirk but it's literally written like that in the US constitution, that's silly
Nah, they knew they'd need to handle a situation where the executive essentially refuses his responsibility. If the president doesn't like a bill, he can beat it, which allows the Senate to overrule him with a 2/3 majority. But if the president knows he'll get overruled and still doesn't want the bill to become a law, what if he just ignores it? How does Congress check his power in that case?
This forces the president to make a decision on (most) bills. The pocket veto still happens from time to time but that's a failure of Congress's scheduling.
The failure IMO is how scheduling is controlled by the Speaker (or Senate Pro Tempore) without any vote to reign in a rouge agent. I suppose they thought such a move would be political suicide for elections, but I suppose the constitution was made in a time where they only expected educated (white, male) landowners to vote.
Yeah, that I agree with. A lot of documented procedures came with the expectation that the people in charge wouldn't stoop to this level.
"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." - Madison
They absolutely recognized the futility of trying to maintain a democracy when the the people in charge do stoop to this level, and the people in charge are a reflection of the electorate.
Fair enough, view. Pretty much any civilized society needs to run on some form of trust and not litigate every little detail.I do, at the same time, think more checks are needed as a governmental body grows.
But we may have never theoretically hit such a point if the house grew as Madison expected it to back in the day. Or if the courts expanded to keep match with the number of districts. So part of this was breaking established systems
Does anyone have any insight on what this means vis a vis a rift in the republican party, or some measure of pulling back from the more extreme elements?
Or is this just something for the midterms? I can't imagine it will come into effect quickly enough to have a felt effect before then.
I don't think this is a rift. It's just the president putting Republicans between a rock and a hard place because he's totally out of touch with the of the amount of power he still has over Congress versus their constituents. He wants Congress to pass the save act, which is deeply unpopular with constituents because it disenfranchises a lot of people, not just Democrats. If has no chance of passing because of that. This housing bill is popular broadly though.
So republicans can vote for a bill that is wildly unpopular because it takes away some of their constituents right to vote and risk the ire of a president who really doesn't have much power over their political careers anymore, or they can call the presidents bluff and let him do what he will, because they know if he vetoes the housing bill, the blame will be placed squarely on him.
He used to be able to get his way and force Congress to pass laws that their constituents don't like by threatening to primary him. The further along he is in his last presidential term, the fewer congressional elections he'll be president during, which means he has less influence over political careers. Right now, representatives only have to deal with trump as an active political force for one more election, and it's an election that his party seems poised to badly lose because of him. After that, his power to threaten congresspeople at primaries greatly diminishes. I think we'll start to see a lot more of these clashes between Congress and the president as time goes on because of that, even if they manage to hold a majority somehow.
It's like if you took your family out to eat, and the owner of the restaurant was like "I'll only bring out the appetizers you ordered for your family if you make them eat these bowls of diarrhea too, and if you don't, they'll blame you for not getting their appetizers" and then you're like "uh, no thanks. The appetizers aren't really worth eating diarrhea. We just won't come to this restaurant anymore. Also, they're the ones who picked this restaurant in the first place, so they're not going to blame me for not bringing their appetizers, they're going to blame you"
Thank you for your analysis, this makes sense to me. Also, the diarrhea thing is ... vivid 🙃
This analogy is mostly true, except the family watches a show every day that tells them that they love eating diarrhea which is chock full of vitamins and will make Jesus love you. Also the owner is handing you $3,000 as he says it. He got the money from the diarrhea vendor.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Johnson sends landmark housing bill to Trump for signature