Talk:Pocket veto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Constitutional lack of clarity[edit]

The Constitution is unclear as to whether an adjournment other than the adjournment sine die allows a pocket veto to take place, and this issue has never been decisively settled by the courts, since no President has been willing to risk an unfavorable ruling. 06:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pocket veto[edit]

I think the key thing to remember is that the pocket veto is not an act of the President but one of Congress. It is Congress that kills the bill by preventing its return:

. . . unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Therefore, it is obvious that Congress cannot overrule a pocket veto, because it would be overruling itself. Rad Racer | Talk 22:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally still find this another example of the rather bizzare nature of US politics. Why not just allow the President to veto or sign it, presumably both return it to Congress. But of course, the bill is in limbo until Congress is back in session and they can do whatever they do with signed and vetod bills. This effectively means all Congress bills have to be passed at least 10 days before an adjoiment and I guess would also mean if President or someone else were insane, they could blow up Congress which would presumable force an adjoinment and prevent an bills which have been sent to the President being passed (or vetod). I guess Congress could start from scratch when they are in session again and obviously who ever does the blowing up would be in deep shit but it would still kill any Congress passed bill requiring a complete restart Nil Einne 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Nil Einne, under the Constitution, once the President signs a bill, it becomes law. It cannot be returned to Congress. Bills are only returned to Congress when they are vetoed. The pocket veto is when a bill is not signed but cannot be returned to Congress due to the adjournment of Congress. If Congress were blown up, it would not be adjourned because it did not pass a motion for adjournment, so a pocket veto wouldn't work, as the bill would become law since 10 days passed without presidential action while Congress remained in session. Blowing up Congress would be effective for a regular veto because then Congress would not be able to vote to override. OCNative 09:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is quite the opposite. Under the Constitution, the President can do 3 things when a bill comes to his desk:
(1) Sign the bill: The bill becomes law.
(2) Not sign the bill, and return it to Congress (along with a "Memorandum of Disapproval"): This is called a Veto, and Congress can try to override it, or not take up the business at all.
(3) Not sign the bill, and not do anything at all: If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is still in session, it becomes law. If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is NOT in session, it is voided (in this case, it is called a pocket veto).
No where did the Constitution say that Congress cannot take up overriding procedure AFTER it reconvenes, that there's a time limit as to when it should be taken up. Therefore, both the "H.J.RES.64" veto, as well as "H.R. 3808" situation, are both plain old veto because the President sent the bill back along with a written objection, as opposed to what a lot of media and editors here at Wiki claims to be pocket vetoes.Finestela (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

US centric[edit]

To help, I was able to find that the executive branch of government in Finland has the constitutional power for a pocket veto. --Kenneth M Burke 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the phrase is also commonly used in India. I've tagged the article. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter of whether this article is U.S. centric is an interesting one. Clearly, the article is U.S. centric. Additionally, it is federal centric --- it focuses only on the U.S.'s federal government (not its state or local governments.) One wonders if someone ought to create new pocket veto articles such as "pocket vetoes in state and local governments" or "pocket vetoes outside the U.S." or somesuch. Trying to make this article cover pocket vetoes in all governmental contexts might make it very long and very difficult to read. Thoughts? kevinrkosar(Talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First US President[edit]

The article states that the first president to use the pocket veto was Madison, yet the list of presidential vetos shows Washington as having used it. Anyone? Kaiguy (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington didn't use it. It was vandalism in [1] (preceding edit by same IP confirms vandalism). I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Washington issued two regular vetoes but no pocket vetoes. kevinrkosar(Talk) 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved your posts to below the posts they are commenting on. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The first president to use it according to "The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776-2007" was Jackson. Page 126 states: [Jackson] even put the "pocket veto" to use for the first time. No footnote, but it's an academic book assigned for my politics class. Authors- Sidney M. Milkis (UVA) and Michael Nelson (Rhodes College), fifth edition, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crudnick (talkcontribs) 00:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, how many people are going to research a pocket veto in India? I realize that other forms of government may use this system, but mainly, the topic is going to be primarily researched by those who are looking for U.S. government policies and processes...

--Kaleb-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Section "legal status" removed without explanation[edit]

I'm reverting this edit because it doesn't explain why an entire section was removed. (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Controversy[edit]

Having a heading called 'current controversy' is not very wise. Can someone with a knowledge of the issue rename it? It seems to be 2 years (and one president) out of date already, so not very "current"

DermottBanana (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the name at least to "Recent usage", however our description of the controversy sounds like old Wikipedia:Recentism. With List of United States presidential vetoes, I think we should reconsider this section. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical use in the US[edit]

There is a claim near the end of the article that Lincoln's pocket veto of the Wade-Davis Bill evaded agents of Congress, in a similar manner to more recent pocket vetos. I can't say whether that's true, but I'm unable to find reference to it elsewhere, including in the Wade-Davis Bill article. Offhand it looks as if the assertion in that paragraph wandered from "pocket vetoed despite Congressional attempts to force a return of the bill" to "pocket vetoed". Ideally this discussion could be moved into the context of various counters to a pocket veto in other political systems. - toh (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


This is a concept of United States government. As far as I can tell. Saying it has a US bias is unfounded. Removing template. Johnathlon (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

After some research, I stand corrected. I added an India section and corrected the language in the lead in. Further, I removed the template. Johnathlon (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


Hey Rogermw, the section on recent usage doesn't suffer from a bias towards recentism, the US section does. A recent usage section will inherently be about recent usage. In putting a {{wp:recentism}} tag in the US section I'm saying the section as a whole (given its balance of coverage of recent events and historical context) suffers from recentism. Does that make sense? Johnathlon (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to the lead[edit]

Getting rid of the word "president" in the lead. I'm not sure all presidents in the world have veto power. Even if so, saying "official with veto power" would still include every office it previously did. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)