Life and Times of Alex Esguerra — US Congress
Overriding a Veto
Pubblicato da noreply@blogger.com (Alex Esguerra) il
A veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation. A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States of America) can block any resolution, or it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate will override a Presidential veto of legislation.[1] A veto may give power only to stop changes (thus allowing its holder to protect the status quo), like the US legislative veto, or to also adopt them (an "amendatory veto"), like the legislative veto of the Indian President, which allows him to propose amendments to bills returned to the Parliament for reconsideration.
quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto
The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint resolution and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The president has ten days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by Congress. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the veto. This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's objections. A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day period. The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does not have the opportunity to override.
Hence, this is why the Speaker of the House has expressed her plans moving forward on March 26.
Her bill is to re-introduced a bill or joint resolution that has been vetoed by the President can become law if two-thirds of the Members voting in the House and the Senate each agree to pass it over the President’s objection. The chambers act sequentially on vetoed measures: The House acts first on House-originated measures (H.R. and H.J. Res.), and the Senate acts first on Senate-originated measures (S. and S.J. Res.). If the first-acting chamber fails to override the veto, the other chamber cannot consider it. The House typically considers the question of overriding a presidential veto under the hour rule, with time customarily controlled and allocated by the chair and ranking Member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill. The Senate usually considers the question of overriding a veto under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement.
Under the new democratic controlled congress, it will be an overwhelming yes to pass the re-introduction. The question lies now whether it goes pass beyond the United States Senate controlled by the Republicans. The recent developments of Republican senators who finally broke the ranks on challenging this President although compelling will still need a two-thirds vote.
Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, must agree to override the veto and repass the bill. The vote must be a roll call vote and not a voice vote, due to the constitutional requirement that the vote be by the “yeas and nays.” A motion to reconsider the vote on the question of overriding a veto is in order only if the Senate fails to override the veto. In other words, if two-thirds of the Senators agree to override the veto, a motion to reconsider that vote is not in order. If the Senate fails to override a veto of a Senate-originated bill (S. or S.J. Res.), then the question of override never reaches the House. The Senate simply informs the House that the override vote on a House or Senate bill was unsuccessful. If the override vote on a Senate-originated measure (S. or S.J. Res.) is successful in the Senate, the bill and veto message are sent to the House for action. If the override vote on a House-originated measure (H.R. or H.J. Res.) is successful, then the bill becomes law because two-thirds of both chambers have agreed to override the veto.
Only after this is successful with this veto be overridden. Hence, this is why is already expected this re-introduction will eventually not get the two-thirds senators to get a "yes". The speaker of the house known from her wits on negotiation for the record is perceive to answer why her next steps plans of re-introduction on March 26. We know, the Senate expected not to get the two-thirds to "yes" but the most important achievement that she and the democrats are aiming to get more Republicans in Congress to break their allegiance to this President.
Regardless, the ultimate goal of the partisan endeavor is the separation of powers between executive and legislative that could be a precedent for future Presidents to simply use a National Emergency without going through congress as a tool to abuse his/her executive authority to use discretionary funds that should been enacted through congress. This is also why the democrats is also considering going to the courts.
We will see what happens next on this actions.
No One is Above The Law Yet is there a case of Impeachment amidst a New Congress
Pubblicato da noreply@blogger.com (Alex Esguerra) il
 |
| Impeaching the President |
A few days before a new year 2019 before the Democrats takes over control of the House of Representatives again opens the case on the subject of Impeachment.
Reading through Alan Hirsch book validates the process of impeachment. A process that has been improved yet raise on every President since 1994's Bill Clinton's case of impeachment. From George Bush to even Barack Obama's issue of being not born in the US and using an Executive Order for DACA, it seems to be now a trend that "Impeachment" has been always a discussion in Congress. Whether it does happen, discuss or even a bill created towards impeaching the current Commander In Chief is the real question. What's the main difference as the author noted in previous Presidents is that most of the impeachable cases came about on the previous Presidents second term in office. The main relevance on this case today is on April 2017, 3 months right on the start of the 45th President Donald J. Trump first term presidency solidified his impeachment case followed by the creation of the Special Counsel to investigate on the Russian intervention of the 2016 Presidential elections.
As of this writing, it is the 3rd government shutdown on this administration when no deal came about with Congress and the White House. The main issue tackled is a "Border Wall" between Mexico and the United States, the main requirement of President Trump. The democrats as known will never agree to this border wall. The President now trying to get more and more open to negotiations, says it may now be a "Steel Barrier Fence" instead of a "Concrete Wall". Whether this new nomenclature will be agreeable still raises the question. If you really want to end the shut down Mr. President, a simple grammar correction might be "Border Security". Your business acumen knows better by using corrected grammar then identifying the right necessary steps and tools you might need taking into consideration what are the allowable actions in such terms.
Hirsch did a good representation of the historical narratives, engravings, illustrations and documentations on the impeachment episodes dating from Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon to the last one of Bill Clinton. Clinton's case made the trend to start an impeachment discussion on every President that followed from Bush, Obama and now Trump.
America as the greatest country is the epitome of democratic principles. Authoritarian rulers are commonly seen in history from third developing countries for example as their President, Prime Minister, General are above the law coupled with corruption and human rights violations. Hence is why Saddam Hussein is now history. Such authoritarians act and lead on their own choice and command, controls their Congress and titled as military ruler. This is why some of them were deposed by their own military by way of a Coup D Etta.
As I see it, firing the AG, FBI Directors neither is obstruction on the case of President Trump is a long shot towards removal from office. Him holding the highest office of enforcing the law given to him sort of immunizes him being removed or sued right now. The campaign spending issues may or may not be legal cases but that will come after his presidency.
Congress is mainly focus on protecting the Special Counsel Mueller's from being removed or dictated. This is because this is the prime case that may lead to a case of impeachment if this President or his enforcers derails Mueller's investigation unless Mueller acted improperly. When a President prevents a Prosecutor to do his or her job because he feels threaten as signs shows in the past then this obstruction of justice for an impeachment case of the 45th President.
Richard Nixon as verified by the author in book made the strategy to change the Special Prosecutor and was not later impeached. It is agreeable that if Trump does replace Mueller it might or not reduced an impeachment case. However, today is very much a different case as this President has since already concluded on him being threaten by this Prosecutor's actions. Likewise, Nixon eventually resigned from office as a last resort. What happens to this President amidst a new Congress is there to see in 2019. It might turn things around for the better good by being non-partisan between Congress and the White House as seen in previous Presidents or whether a case of impeachment is doom, we will have to see.
May we enjoy the blessings of this Holiday Season and Hoping for the best of the New Year.