Obama's First Veto

Huh wha? Via Taegan-

The Washington Post notes an event that was overshadowed by the health care debate: President Obama's first veto, which the House will vote on overriding tomorrow.

Curiously, Obama "didn't really oppose the bill he vetoed, and the House doesn't really want to override it."

"Confused? Welcome to the murky world of the separation of powers, where the legislative and executive branches are still squabbling, more than 200 years after the adoption of the Constitution, over how exactly the president is empowered to reject a bill passed by Congress. In this case, the issue is whether the president can issue a 'pocket veto' when Congress is out of session by simply refusing to sign a bill."

White House threatens veto over intel disclosure

By GottaLaff

FYI:

The White House said Thursday that if the intelligence authorization bill contains language broadening who the president must inform on covert activities, President Obama would be advised to veto the bill.

Currently, the White House is required by law to inform the "Gang of Eight," the leadership of both Houses and intelligence committees, of covert actions deemed too sensitive to disclose to full committees or legislative bodies.

Officials at the Office of Management and Budget, which distributed the statement of administration policy, also raised concerns about language in the bill that would require "the disclosure of internal executive branch legal advice and deliberations" on covert actions. OMB argues that provision would run afoul of the Constitution. [...]

The language in the bill "undermines this fundamental compact between the Congress and the president," OMB said, calling the current agreement "an arrangement that for decades has balanced congressional oversight responsibilities with the President’s responsibility to protect sensitive national security information." [...]

The OMB statement expresses optimism that administration officials will be able to reach an agreement to avoid the veto.

All 41 Senate Republicans Seek Veto Power Over Obama's Federal Judicial Appointments

By GottaLaff

My Buzzflash Buddy sent this one to me. It's a real pip:

A letter signed by all 41 Senate Republicans was sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy yesterday in which the GOP demanded inclusion in, and ultimately veto power over, the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees.

The GOP wants... veto power? Say wha-a-a? After the last 8 years of rubber stamping Bush's splendorificraptastic picks, and now they want, ahem, bipartisanship, uh, I mean "senatorial courtesy", er, make that a filibuster?

The demand was a sharp turn-around for Republicans, who had for the past eight years been calling for the swift confirmation of then-President George W. Bush's appointees.[...]

But the GOP's request for veto power of nominees before the judiciary even debates a particular appointment is far from the norm.

The letter gives lip service to themes of bipartisanship [...] However, what they demand is nothing short of minority control. The letter states that if Republicans "are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states" they will "not support moving forward," presumably threatening a filibuster.

The phrase "senatorial courtesy" may sound better than "threat of filibuster," but as Politico points out, "the letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years." [...] The letter emphasizes the idea of working together, when the true intent is more threat than peace offering. [...]

Yet, back in 2005, Kyl was firmly on the opposite side of this argument:

"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people."

[...] It appears White House Counsel Gregory Craig has begun his outreach to Republicans in the Senate over judicial appointees, but it is unclear whether the plan outlined in the GOP Conference letter will affect the nomination process.

There's much more here on the Ob-suck-tionist Party.

Obama Issues First Veto Threat

By GottaLaff

Democrats claimed they would stand up to P.E. Obama (as opposed to what they did for the past 8 years with the Moron in Chief). Turnabout's fair play:

President-elect Barack Obama made his first veto threat Tuesday in a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats. Obama told his former colleagues that if Congress passes a resolution blocking release of the second half of the financial bailout funds he will veto it, said Sen. Joseph Lieberman after leaving the caucus meeting. [...]

Obama spoke for about fifteen minutes and then spent much of the rest of the hour-plus meeting answering questions. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) spoke on behalf of increased spending on energy independence and alternative energy as a way to stimulate the economy. "You add up all the benefits of it and it's really quite extraordinary," said Kerry. [...]

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a top Obama surrogate during the campaign, said that Obama repeatedly stressed the urgency of getting access to the TARP funds quickly and spent the bulk of the meeting on the subject. "The single message that was most consistent was that time is of the essence. There's a sense of urgency," she said.

Because of that urgency, McCaskill said, Obama told the group that he understood that the Senate may not have the time it needs to develop a proper oversight package. He asked his former colleagues not to let that slow down the release of the funds, promising to conduct the oversight they expect and operate with transparency.

GOP senators said Tuesday they were not enthusiastic about releasing the second half of the funds. [...]

If Congress releases the funds without a new oversight bill, it will rely on a gentleman's agreement of sort between congressional Democrats and Obama. The framework for such an agreement was debated in a House Financial Services Committee hearing Tuesday. "This is a 'trust but verify' bill," said committee chairman Barny Frank (D-Mass.).

McCaskill, though, said she thinks Obama may get enough votes out of the Senate to approve the funds, obviating a veto. "We didn't take a caucus vote, but he needs fifty votes out of the caucus. I'd be shocked if he didn't get it," she said.

H/t: Ellen

The ugly Bush stain: Interior Dept. Changes Rule to Remove Congress Veto edition

By GottaLaff

That putrid whiff of flatulence you smell? It's Bush... again:

'The revision of the rule eliminates all references to Congressional authority.' Interior Dept. Changes Rule to Remove Congress Veto

In another regulatory action in the waning days of the Bush dictatorship, the Interior Department on Thursday unveiled a new rule that challenges Congress’s authority to prevent mining planned on public lands. Congress has emergency power to stop mineral development, and has used it six times in the last 32 years. The most recent was in June, when it put a three-year moratorium on uranium mining on one million acres near the Grand Canyon. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has ignored that Congressional directive, saying it was procedurally flawed. The revision of the rule eliminates all references to Congressional authority.

Bush can have all the farewell, maudlin, revisionist interviews he wants, but nothing... nothing... will eliminate the stench he leaves behind after eight years of infecting this country with a rotting, decomposing morgue full of felons hell bent on vaporizing the Constitution.

Bush, McCain Torpedoed Money For Iowa Levees

By Paddy


I guess your "principled stance" is very comforting to those who lost their property Senator McCain. And may I say, you vetoed funding for levees? Last year? 2 years after Katrina should have taught you better? Talk about a long learning curve.

Washington, D.C. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposed legislation last year that included money for flood control in Des Moines, which shows he is wrong to push for reforms to the congressional earmark system, a Democratic lawmaker charged Thursday.

State Sen. Jack Hatch of Des Moines said the earmarked money was needed to relieve water problems on the city's north side, which were magnified over the weekend when a levee break forced an evacuation of the Birdland area and ruined several dozen homes and businesses.

(snip)

President Bush eventually vetoed the bill, which authorized more than 900 navigation, flood-control and environmental projects across the country. A report on the bill said the Des Moines metropolitan area suffered more than $152 million in flood damage in 1993.