HR6166... a POCKET VETO by default.?

Patriots Speak Out

Senate Passed HR 6166 9/28/06

The following rule applies, Congress Adjourned (09/29/06) before the 10 days. So they will need to have a do over. Now is the time to call, write, email...all of the above to stop this!!!


The President - the bill is sent to the President for review.

1. A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

2. If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")

3. If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.

How a Bill Becomes Law

my footnote: So the question is, does this mean the incoming congress holds the pocket veto? or does the current congress need to re-adjourn. We need to immediately look into this

CRS - The Pocket Veto: Its Current Status

The Pocket Veto: Its Current Status


The Constitution provides that any bill not returned by the President “within tenDays (Sundays excepted)” shall become law, “unless the Congress by theirAdjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”  Thisinstrument of presidential power, known as the “pocket veto,” was first used in 1812by President James Madison.  Unlike the regular veto, which is subject to acongressional override, a pocket veto is “absolute” because it is not returned toCongress.Beginning in 1929, several judicial decisions attempted to clarify when anadjournment by Congress would “prevent” the President from returning a veto.Several cases during the Nixon administration appeared to restrict the pocket veto toa final adjournment of Congress at the end of the second session, and thatunderstanding was accepted by the Ford and Carter administrations.  Under thispolitical accommodation, Presidents would not use the pocket veto in the middle ofa session (intrasession vetoes) or between the first and the second sessions(intersession vetoes).  However, that agreement has not been followed by the Reagan, Bush, andClinton administrations.  President Ronald Reagan issued a pocket veto late in 1981and 1983 (at the end of the first sessions), and President George Bush also usedintersession 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 thatthe vetoes were returned to Congress.  Evidently the inter- and intrasessionadjournments by Congress did not “prevent” the return of the vetoes.  If the Presidentreturned these “pocket vetoes,” could Congress attempt an override?  The answer isthat Congress several times has taken override votes on these types of pocket vetoes.Efforts to legislate the meaning of “adjournment” have thus far beenunsuccessful, nor has there been any definitive judicial ruling to clarify theconstitutional issue, although court rulings have established important parameters forthe pocket veto.  As a result, the scope of the pocket veto power has been left largelyto practice and to political understandings developed by the executive and legislativebranches.

source : 


well, it seems like it to me but I need some more opinions, consensus on this.

Sorry for the long

Sorry for the long paragraph, acrobat mangles the whitespaces and my tcp connection was reset while editing...

Point is the administration is giving the Constitution the finger and it seems no one cares.

you should use the firefox extension that opens pdf as html

it's pretty sweet, but I did read through it and mabey I'm just tired, but there is nothing there that refutes this bill being a pocket veto, is there?

Yeah but I have never heard

Yeah but I have never heard of this before, not that I have been paying attention to the length of time between signing a bill and adjournments of Congress.

He didn't pocket it, he signed it, so this would seem to suggest it IS invalid.

Are they just screwing with us and punching holes in the Constitution, I mean this is NOW a constitutional crisis, no doubt.

The US has 1/2 of all the lawyers and no one notices... 


I think the pocket term means the veto is untenable, IE: it's automatically veto's because

A. the prez didn't sign it within 10 days.


B. congress ajourned within those 10 days.

I really think this stands, we need a constitutional lawyer right about now. Or a less tired me.

Didn't Bush sign this today?

Didn't Bush sign this today? Also, 616 was announced as the new number of the beast in '05....just a little interesting factoid.

Did the beast move up the

Did the beast move up the street or something?


668 Neighbor of the Beast 



Didn't deliver until the 6th...

I was thinking about this today, and I agree. But, I've also found an explanation. They say that the bill was not brought to the President until Oct. 6, 2006. That gave him until the 17th. The 6th is the day that's on the Congressional calendar as being the end of the session.

This, I believe is the catch though

It doesn't matter that he signed it within ten days

all it stipulates is that if a president does NOT sign a bill within ten days while the congress is IN session, it becomes law no matter what.

the addendum is

“unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

What I am getting from that is if they leave and he hasn't signed it, the parties over on the bill because if he veto'd it they would not be there to overturn his veto.