Friday, December 28, 2007 5:53 PM
CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.
Bush announced he would scuttle the bill with a "pocket veto" - essentially, letting the bill die without his signature 10 days after he received it, or the end of Dec. 31.
But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session because it has held brief - sometimes only seconds long - meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.
The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.
This poses some interesting questions.
1. How many Senators are needed to be in session? If only one, can that one call for a vote on a bill, vote for passage, and have it sent to the President for signature and law?
2. If not enough Senators do not attend the Senate session upon opening, is the Senate then actually in session or is it adjoined?
3. If the Senate is in session without a quorum of Senators, can the President do a "pocket veto" even if one Senator is in attendance?
4. If the Senate is in session with only one Senator in attendance, can the President submit a "pocket veto" and not enact the law?
5. How much notice is required to be given Senators of the time to convene a Senate meeting?
These are difficult Constitutional questions. I've done minimal research and have found nothing to illuminate these questions. SCOTUS may have to meet and decide these issues as this could backfire drastically.
An example, if the Senate is in session with one or 2 Senators in attendance, they theoretically could vote and send a bill to the President for signature to become law. That may not seem so bad, but what if they are of the same party lines and this is a way of stopping or prevention of filibuster by the party in opposition to the Bill. In theory then, 2 Senators could pass a joint Bill and send it the President for signature without any debate or notice on anything from Constitutional Amendments to tax legislation, and every thing in between. I don't think this is what our founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution. Could the House do the same thing?
