Hacker News Reader

Comment by eah13 | Hacker News Reader

Point of order: the bill may pass the House of Reps. Senate would have to pass it and president sign it before it becomes law. Big difference.

Crappy headlines like this promote a misunderstanding of how gov't works... OP should read up on civics a little

View on HN

Speaking of promoting misunderstanding, your incorrect characterisation of this amendment as a bill in it's own right has prompted, to date, no fewer than half a dozen people to earnestly speculate that the President will certainly veto the bill - thus defunding the entire Defense Department, rather than just one program - should it pass.

You are correct- it was an amendment, not a bill. Live by the snark, die by the snark :)

Sure, but if the House and Senate were to pass it, it makes the President veto it (either explicitly or through inaction).

This requires a higher level of support for the measure than previously expressed - At that point, you're saying "I as the Executive, think this is more important than the will of congress."

Politically, that's harder to justify.

There's also the (unlikely) scenario where it would have enough votes to override a veto, even if the President remained fully against it.

The president can't veto an amendment, he has to veto the entire bill. It would be hilarious if with out sufficient votes his veto resulted in the DoD having no money.

Basically, he can't veto the bill and survive politically...

Certainly - But he could veto the bill, and tell them to resubmit with that clause removed. It'd bounce it back down, and start the process again - Upping the stakes on both sides.

There's a lot of political tricks that could (and have) be used when congress and the President vehemently disagree.

In this case, however, I don't think it'd ever get that far. I don't think the issue is popular enough pass the senate, nevermind with a veto-proof majority.

Even then, The Senate is run by the Dems, and (IMO) they're unlikely to want override a veto on a President of their own party.

"Certainly - But he could veto the bill, and tell them to resubmit with that clause removed. It'd bounce it back down, and start the process again - Upping the stakes on both sides."

It would be interesting to see what his supporters say if that happens. Remember how Obama did not do this with the NDAA that allowed indefinite detentions? His supporters were claiming that nothing could be done because it is suicidal to veto funding for the troops.

There's still the as yet to be clarified potential loophole of signing statements:

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

It would be a permanent embarrassment to his legacy to perpetuate this state of affairs via a signing statement. At the very least, I doubt his ego would allow it.

My understanding of the US political process is based off what I have learned from TV and the news, but even if it passed the House and Senate, the President can still veto this bill, right? So, since we already know the President supports this cause, and it is his last term, the chances of this becoming law are nil.

You're basically right, but if it passes both chambers and the president vetos it, they can over-ride that veto with a 2/3 majority of each chamber.

That's unlikely, so you're correct in parsing it as a statement being made, not than something that they actually -want- to have happen.

This is extremely common in the US congress.

What is interesting is that if the bill passes with a 2/3 majority Presidents are unlikely to use the Veto. Nothing stops them from vetoing it but they usually take the passing with that strong of a margin as an indication that the veto would be overridden anyway.

If they really feel strongly about it they'll let the bill sit for the 10 day period where it becomes law without their signature.

Congress can override the president's veto. "[the veto] can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation."[0]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#cite_note-1

Thanks. Didn't know that.

One of the best School House Rocks videos ever is "I'm Just a Bill." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

There are two things missing:

1. Congress can override a Presidential veto with a vote a two-thirds majority in the both chambers.

2. The President can also let a Bill sit for 11 or 12 days (it's really 10, but Sundays don't count.) At that point it becomes law without the President's signature.

Minor correction that is not particularly meaningful here:

2. The President can also let a Bill sit for 11 or 12 days (it's really 10, but Sundays don't count.) At that point it becomes law without the President's signature UNLESS CONGRESS ADJORNS DURING THIS PERIOD, THEN IT DOES NOT BECOME LAW (KNOWN AS A "POCKET VETO").

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

At this point a pocket veto only occurs at the end of a full Congressional session since Congress basically stays in pro forma session year round.

Well, it depends on the level of support it gets. If it passes, and Americans show increased support for the effort, it will gain support. A presidential veto could potentially energize this support (granted, it could also kill it). If Americans make it known that this is a big issue for them, there is a chance it could get enough support to override the veto (I'm assuming there are a few Republicans who support PRISM that would vote to override the veto just to knock Obama around a bit).

Ok so the following comment is good.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6098357

Yes he could veto the bill, but this bill contains multiple parts and I believe is the entire DoD budget. So if he did so the US would have no DoD budget. That would be very bad for him.

None of the other comments here are wrong, but they don't address the issue of a Presidential Veto affecting the entire bill not just the amendment.

There's lots of other tricksy stuff too, though, like signing statements. The president could say collecting meta data related to terrorists isn't spying on American's even if that meta data includes American data...basically ordering the executive branch to interpret the law as meta data is fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com