[Britfunclubs]

Did he actually try to return the Bill?

See Adasks' site.

It doesn't make any difference what Truman did. The record speaks for itself.

[DINAKuncher]

Joe King's job is to derail pertinent posts....

[Britfunclubs]

Dotting the "eye's" and crossing the "tee's" is what law is all about. All you are saying is sloppiness is permitted of your public servants and you have no personal standards.

This method of attacking them on violated procedure meets with my approval. Any method that gets one free while staying in honor is acceptable in my book.

[Britfunclubs]

No, what I'm saying is that the Constitution does not specify that Congress be in session when the POTUS actually puts ink to paper and signs a Bill they've presented to him within the previous ten days. {not counting Sundays}

Mine too, but you made it sound as though it wasn't Congress who presented the Bill to the POTUS for signing.

The facts are on the record. Read it.

[Britfunclubs]

I could be disturbed by your failure to understand basic principles but then I figure you are merely displaying the law of your being. What you are communicating is why you volunteer to being the bottom feeder in the food chain. You have sufficient information to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but I have no doubt you will find an excuse not to do so.

[sjdflghd]

This is part and parcel of both Roman law and civil law. The concept incorporates one of the key aspects of law, namely, REASON. Reason is a key component of common law.

While it is true most judicial actors might issue a warrant for ARREST yet if you do not come when SUMMONED (Pavlov's response? Like a dog being trained?) then the ARREST has no basis in law if merely issued for a failure to appear when SUMMONED.

Unless you consider the topic carefully the chances are you will not come up with the concept on your own. People have been programmed to respond yet when they do so improperly they establish the legal authority of the judicial actor who is going to extend his/her jurisdiction to them.

Nip it in the bud early and you stand a better chance of draining the swamp rather than defending yourself against alligators/sharks/attorners.

Any rebuttal? Anywhere? Anyone?

Can you show any proof of this working in real life?

[foodselfdourileka]

Can you shoe any proof of this working in real life?

I am suggesting this is the attitude one must go into any situation with. Don't concentrate on just this one action. Concentrate on the behavior.

[sjdflghd]

I am suggesting this is the attitude one must go into any situation with. Don't concentrate on just this one action. Concentrate on the behavior.

I'll take that as a no then.

[foodselfdourileka]

I'll take that as a no then.

Take it any way you like. This thread is for discussion and education only.

[klubneras]

Take it any way you like. This thread is for discussion and education only.

Is there value in something that can't be proven to work?

[foodselfdourileka]

If the POTUS signs the Bill, why would it be returned to Congress? The Executive Branch executes the laws enacted by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...gislative_role

The first power the U.S. Constitution confers upon the president is the legislative power of the presidential veto. The Presentment Clause requires any bill passed by Congress to be presented to the president before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the president has three options:

1. Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law.
2. Veto the legislation and return it to Congress, expressing any objections; the bill does not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
3. Take no action. In this instance, the president neither signs nor vetoes the legislation. After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:
   
   • If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.
   • If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto.

If you'll notice the last part, it specifies that Congress may or may not be in session when a Bill is signed into law.

So why do you keep insisting that Congres must be in session in order for the POTUS to sign a Bill?
Congress has been adjourning after presenting a Bill to the POTUS for signing since longer than I can remember them doing it, which at this point is 8 administrations....and counting.

I'll give you an example you might understand:

A news reporter was standing on the street polling people on what they thought the worlds greatest wonder was. One mentioned the great pyramids. Another mentioned the invention of flight. A third mentioned a thermos.

This last one caught the reporter off guard. He asked the guy "why would a thermos classify as the worlds greatest wonder?" The guy responded "When you put something hot in it stays hot. When you put something cold in it stays cold." The reporter, "Yeah, so what?". The guy, "Well how does it know?"

If congress is adjourned how does it know what the president did with the bill? Are they expected to be more intelligent than a thermos?

[foodselfdourileka]

Is there value in something that can't be proven to work?

You always learn something. How's your present method working?