To: Howlin
"I think that is wrong; I think they did have the votes to override him. I may be wrong, but I might have even read that on this very thread.Two thirds majority to override, vote in house was 252 for, 167 against. Two thirds would have been 279 for. So not only would the veto not have been overridden, I would be willing to bet some of the 252 fors would have changed to against. So once again, Bush signed a bill he knew was unconstitutional even though he knew a Veto would not be overridden.
To: JustAnAmerican
Thanks for the information; I'll skip the editorializing.
981 posted on
12/10/2003 11:01:55 AM PST by
Howlin
(Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
To: JustAnAmerican
Two thirds majority to override, vote in house was 252 for, 167 against. Two thirds would have been 279 for. So not only would the veto not have been overridden, I would be willing to bet some of the 252 fors would have changed to against. So once again, Bush signed a bill he knew was unconstitutional even though he knew a Veto would not be overridden. And I might add, the Senate vote was 59-41, nowhere near enough to override a veto.
To: JustAnAmerican
My mistake the vote by the House was 240 yay, 189 nay. Even more of a un-overridable Veto, if Bush had Vetoed it.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson