Hell, even a chimpanzee hits the toilet bowl once and awhile.
fm wrote-
I would hold it at mutual back-scratching if I was you fm.
That dog looks a bit territorial to me.
FM, i don't know how you would go about learning how often a bill has been passed due to inaction on the part of the executive. It is far easier to find information on pocket vetoes. A pocket veto occurs when an executive (whether the President or the Governor of a state) withholds signature on a bill, knowing that the end of the legislative session will occur before the expiration of the statutory limit. This was first done by James Madison in 1812, and it was alleged in newspapers that he had simply put the bill in his pocket and made no further comment--hence, a pocket veto.
A pocket veto is as close to an "ultimate veto" as an executive can come. Because the legislative session ends before the constitutional default kicks in, the bill is not returned to the Congress for an override vote. On past occasions, the Congress has obviated this by appointing an agent or agents to receive the bill from the President, or to certify it as having been enacted by default through executive inaction. In 1929, the Supremes ruled that a bill had to be returned to the Congress while it is in session and capable of work (because of the question of whether or not adjournment referred only to the end of the sitting of a Congress, which takes place each two years). In 1938, the Supremes ruled that it is appropriate for the Congress to appoint agents to receive the return of a bill by the President. The point would be to deprive the executive of the possibility of a pocket veto.
Both Clinton and the Shrub have attempted to claim that appointing an agent is not a constitutionally acceptable means of avoiding the pocket veto--the courts have never ruled on the issue, even though the 1938 case would seem to make their claim invalid. With those two exceptions, administrations have not pursued the pocket veto issue, fearing that the Supremes would take away their wiggle room.
The Library of Congress does provide a complete legislative history of the Congress. I think you will understand my reluctance, though, to use that means of determining how often Presidents have taken the coward's way out by allowing a bill to fester until it rots into actual law.
I did have a quick look over at the Library of Congress, and Robert Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian, as well as Charles Johnson, the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives, discuss veto messages and the pocket veto--and both take note of the ten day passage provision of Article One, Section Seven, but neither of them discuss cases in which bills have been enacted on that basis.
GAWD, I just had a flashback from my HS junior DC field trip. WE were escorted for part of a day by then US Sen Hugh Scott, who used us as a photo op. Sen Scott, stated that pocket vetoes were begun by Geo Washington who had 4 of these during his term. MAybe they made the term retroactive to GW.
Now you got me interested , Im gonna call the ref librarians over at Princeton and see if they cant dig this up (about the 10 day rule in presidential bill approval).
grrr, the onliest thing i found re: the presentment clause is the Clinton v NYC case. All that does is reaffirm the only actions that the US Const gives to the Pres in being "Presented bills of Congress"
SInce FDR probably ahd the most vetos, I wonder whether he had ignored signing bills that were ultimately made law?
This is gonna bother me till I find out, sorry Wandel, Im like a schoolkid when I get something new to follow.
The list below contains many of the bills vetoed and pocket vetoed by Presidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
spendius wrote:Look, my dear.
That was a bit of playfullness.
It was the previous post that had the bite. The one where the constitution recognises Sunday as a special day. Not a working day I mean.
What sort of non-working days do you AIDsers have in mind? A parade I would guess where we all have to have our buttons polished and you are taking the salutes.
Are you a lingerie person?
Why do our days off have to have a theme? Can't we just have days off for the sake of not working every day? Idiot.
T
K
O
thanks ci and pauligirl. That wiki list diplays the "pocket vetos" of G Washington, but history only lists him with 2 vetos in his entire admin. However, as I recall Sen Scotts explanation, there were several bills on the Navy that G Washington had "pocketed" and thus became the first guy to practice this option.
Im still trying to find the actual bills THAT PASSED due to presidential non action.
This whole thing started with Bobby Jindal and the root of the Louisiana option to allow a bill to pass by inaction of the governor. The differences between the Federal and the Louisiana options are that "the pocket veto" is apparently NOT and option in Louisiana since, if the legislature is out of session, the bill passes by inaction within 20 days, whereas in the Fed model, the dill dies.
fm-
You are hiding. You are distracting yourself from my posts 3291005 and 3291015 by persuing pedantic points of law and pestering Princeton pettifoggers.
Performance enhancing drugs and the Lord's Day in the Constitution.
What are your views?
I presume that the sideways two-step and the side-swipe can be deconstructed to mean that bans on drug use to enhance performance in athletics, if not in music making, meets with your sentimental approval and that the Constitution's recognition of the sanctity of the Lord's day is not a matter you wish to address.
As I have maintained all along you are thus a half-baked scientific, atheistic, materialistic evolutionist who gets out selective aspects of the matter when it suits you and who does the ostrich trick when it doesn't. Which is what the Church did regarding Galileo so that anything you have thought about that applies equally to yourself.
You make it up as you go along in other words and if that is sanity I am happy to remain insane.
In fact, the ban on drugs in sport stimulates scientific research in regard to beating the test procedures and that unintended consequence, if it was so, might have applied to the ban on Galileo and given science a boost.
It could even be that the science of performance enhancing drugs might one day find a cure for all known diseases quicker than stem-cell researcher's wildest fantasies. Who knows?
I'll tell you what constitutes insanity fm. It is thinking you know anything significant about these matters when you obviously don't. Raging insanity is when you preach to others on the basis of such profound ignorance and total, barmpot insanity is when you preach with attenuated feelings.
Further-
I do not consider that stating the simple and obvious does anything for my self worth. In fact that consideration never enters my head as it must do yours for you to think of mentioning it.
You don't lie to attention in bed on Independence Day by any chance do you?
Scientists don't have opinions fm. They go on the facts.
And they respond to questions from peer-reviewers as well. They eschew declaring anybody who stumps them insane too. Only ladies are allowed to do that.
As I stated before to you spendi, I really dont much pay attention to your posts, they are usually irrelevant, run-on, Brownian bits of nonsense. If you want me to really respond to something you said a few days ago, do a cut and paste of its content(unless its one of your half page pieces of jetsum), If theres a decent point within, Ill respond. If I dont, dont blame me for your poor writing style.
That's exactly the attitude I have come to expect from AIDsers fm.
Cervantes has come in for a lot of criticism (Nabokov in Harvard lectures) for falling into the literary conceits he was also deriding.
What your trick facilitates is your selection procedure. By it you are enabled to preen when it is convenient, (i.e. easy) and it's the fault of your protagonist as soon as you are out of your depth. You steer the conversation as you admitted when you defined what "discussion" meant to you.
But not to worry eh? All the viewers are not like that and you can't expect me to compose posts for your benefit as you constantly remind us that you "really dont much pay attention" to them and other viewers are made aware that if they want you to pay attention to what they say they are expected to conform to your prejudices and obvious intellectual limitations.
And I don't blame you for anything. Gumps are gumps. How you got a teaching post completely baffles me.
Making a comparison between the Vatican's attitude to Galileo and your own attitude, which I'm presuming I have now divined, to performance enhancing drugs in sport is not possible without a fair amount of what you, and Mr S, label "run-on" sentences but I, and I trust others, would call making the argument. And it was as short as I could make it.
I don't see the point of not paying "much attention" to what one is reading.
It would be better to not bother reading it at all and replace it with something you are prepared to give your attention to. Reading without paying "much attention" ( a very unscientific term) is the worst of all worlds. Shovelling **** makes more sense than that assuming it's being shovelled out of the way rather than backwards and forwards.
spendius wrote:That's exactly the attitude I have come to expect from AIDsers fm.
Yes I'm sure. And now you're where you've always wanted to be: On the cross, being persecuted for your beliefs, so noble. At least in your head that is.
Truth is that you just want adoration. Your shameless cries for attention betray you. You posts are useless and irrelevant. Their only value as far as I'm concerned is to collect the cute english pub coloquiolisms that make up 99% of your posts, while you fail to support the other 1% with anything at all.
You've recieved far more attention and patience than you deserve Spendi. You should be kinder to folk such as FM who volunteer their time to special cases like yourself; not everyone is willing to suffer fools gladly or otherwise.
T
K
O
spendi, Your use of " AIDsers" is not only tiresome, but without any meaning. Are you, by any chance, related to ican?
cicerone imposter wrote:spendi, Your use of " AIDsers" is not only tiresome, but without any meaning. Are you, by any chance, related to ican?
It does have meaning.
To Spendi, there is nothing more perfect than to brand the scientific rational mind as being diseased. The most feared communicable disaese in our world just happens to make for a less than clever catch phrase.
"AIDser"
"Anti-Intelegent Design ser"
"ser" is no suffix I've heard of. If Spendi had any intellectull merit or decency at that, he'd at minimum refer to us as "evolutionists." After all evolutionary thought is not based no disproving ID, it's the other way around. If anything the belief of ID could be described more accurately as "Anti-EVO" or something similar.
But Spendi isn't aiming at honesty. I don't think that even RL would use such a heinously offensive phrase.
T
K
O
