Replies

The Obama administration said they were using the pocket veto.

But, there's a problem: Congress is still in session. The Senate has not adjourned -- and will not adjourn. They are staying in session throughout the October recess to prevent Obama from making recess appointments.

In other words, the gutless wonder's refusal to explicitly veto the bill is not Constitutional.

Since the bill originated in the house, it doesn't matter that the senate is in session, the bill would be returned to the house. From the constitution:

If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated,
...
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Given that both houses essentially approved of this unanimously, I don't see how a veto matters. It just puts a hold on some foreclosures where all the paperwork was in order, but signed out of state. Which is what I think Obama wants, to hold off his voters from getting foreclosed on until after election.

Although obviously this wasn't much of an issue for the democrats, who were happy to pass this, OR the conservative republicans in the house and senate, none of whom raised any objections.

The Obama administration said they were using the pocket veto.
But, there's a problem: Congress is still in session. The Senate has not adjourned -- and will not adjourn. They are staying in session throughout the October recess to prevent Obama from making recess appointments.
In other words, the gutless wonder's refusal to explicitly veto the bill is not Constitutional.

Oustanding! I forgot about that. Didn't this same issue occur during the last administration?

Is there any clarification as to when congress stands adjourned?