Veto override fails

[mneilmont]

Global warming is the main concern for Jeff Merekle(?), Oregon. Global warming has increased annually(maybe) over the past 10-12 years. Keystone XL would increase temps 2 celcs - nearly 4 degrees. He has to protect the oysters of Oregon. Shells will not harden if XL passes. He can protect his children by not letting the XL be completed.

My comments to an unbelievable presentation on the US Senate floor. That oil will remain in the ground, but should it be sold to China, there is a guard shield around Oregon that will not allow floating gasses to penetrate. This man votes in the management of our government.

And they call Republicans Whacos.

Time for Repubs to change senate rules. Only 50 votes are required to veto any constitutionally incorrect Presidential actions. That posse of Primary Presidential Republicans have got to differentiate themselves from Democrats.
This post was edited on 3/4 4:16 PM by mneilmont

 

[WVUBRU]

Re: LMAO. You go girl!

and showing your patriotism and love of the constitution of wanting to snap your fingers and change it. You may want to study up on the veto/override powers of congress a little bit.

Oh yeah.....go send more money to Carson's campaign. He is perfect for your type.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

My hat is off to you....


for your ability to interpret that mess of a post.

 

[Mntneer]

I was all....

 

[dave]

the party of no

No jobs. No explanations. No logic. No hope and no change.

 

[TarHeelEer]

i think doc wants to challenge someone to a dual **

**

 

[PriddyBoy]

interesting...


"Oh yeah.....go send more money to Carson's campaign. He is perfect for your TYPE." - Bru

Type?

 

[mule_eer]

What was unconstitutional about the president deciding to veto a bill presented to him by the legislative branch? Requiring only a 50% vote to override that veto would require a change to the Constitution. So the question becomes, are you for strict adherence to the Constitution or not? This post makes it sound like you are for it when it suits your beliefs, but willing to toss it out when it doesn't.

 

[mneilmont]

Pay attention. The law itself was not done constitutionally. Therefore it only takes 50% to veto it - anything the Exec Priv created can be overridden by 51% vote. You are right in the normal course, 2/3 vote required to override a veto. Totally agree with the constitution and bill of rights. Clear?

 

[mneilmont]

Sissy, you have got to come up with a better one than Carson


I did. Just taking a page out of Harry Reid's playbook. What is the problem with the constitution you would care to enlighten me in? You have come up short too many times in your innuendos that were proven incorrect only to have you change course. You are going to have to be specific in your challenge.

 

[Motown Mounty_rivals]

Knox is that you?!?**

Q

 

[WVUBRU]

Re: OMG!! The stupidity that gets spilled on this board

is purely amazing sometimes. No doubt the crabby idiot will get all in a huff with another post about how smart he is and get all riled up with insults. I can't wait.

 

[Popeer]

Originally posted by mneilmont:

The law itself was not done constitutionally. Therefore it only takes 50% to veto it -

I'm trying to understand these statements. How is it that a bill passed by both houses of Congress "was not done constitutionally" ?

 

[mneilmont]

Crow tastes better when it is soft or tender.


Couldn't understand the objection until I read what I had written. Sorta intermingled two thoughts. Thanks for not making the objection too tough to eat.

The president is given multiple ways to veto any legislation presented to him. Override by congress requires 2/3vote to override.

President does not have constitutional authority to make a law and then appropriate funding for that law. Some exceptions provided to protect the country while congress is on break. No exception granted because Legislative and Exec branch are not in agreement. Exec cannot act unilaterally to pass because he cannot bring legislative branch along with him.

 

[WVUBRU]

Re: It takes a respectable man to admit when he is in error

I tip my hat to you for recognizing your intent and what you expressed did not match up very well. Well done sir.

 

[mneilmont]

Re: It takes a respectable man to admit when he is in error


Thanks. Difficult to proof read what I have written. Handicapped when I lost a secretary. Would like to say I will read what I have written in the future, but I know better. When I get too many questions about my offering, I will go back and read. It can be embarrassing to hit the enter button when I am quick to share a masterpiece. Maybe I need to learn to cut and paste instead attempting to stay on course through a total thought, but I won't.

 

[mneilmont]

Re: My hat is off to you....


Could have had a high score on that one. The degree of difficulty was substantial.

I was wrong and have no problem admitting it.