Just before the end of the year, I observed that Bush’s pocket veto of a defense spending bill due to its exposure of the current Iraqi regime to lawsuits in the U.S. for Saddam’s actions seemed a little fishy, given that the Senate was still technically in session.
An editorial in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times goes into a little more detail as to the weirdness, treating it also as yet another attempt of the Bush administration to expand the power of the White House:
In this case, Bush tried to have it both ways. He pocket vetoed the bill as if Congress were entirely out of session — but then he did, in fact, return it to Congress by sending it and an outline of his objections to the House clerk. He did so, according to his veto message, “to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.”
If this all sounds like constitutional arcania, consider the outcome if Bush’s faux pocket veto stands unchallenged: Presidents would have absolute veto power any time Congress is not actually in session, bestowing on the chief executive the very authority the founders sought to deny the office. And why did Bush use this veto gambit now? Maybe because the bill in question passed by veto-proof margins.
Regardless of the motive, the Constitution does not allow presidents to pick the kind of veto they wish to use, and it certainly does not condone a pocket veto just because an override is likely. The existing regular veto is plenty potent, and Congress cannot be denied its constitutional right to review vetoes as long as bill return is possible. Congress should do what it did before: treat Bush’s action as a return veto because the bill was returned. And presidents should curb the impulse to play fast and loose with constitutional powers.
Hear, hear!
I still say that if Bush really believed his signing statements have meaning, this would have been one of those bills that such a tactic would be more reasonable.
Ah, if only we had the line-item veto….
