Would you take a look at this for your comment.

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=105618;title=APFN

Kent

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent,

I wish that were true. However, from what I saw in the Library of Congress site, there was a version that was agreed upon by the House and Senate that was passed to White House for Bush to sign and he signed it during a signing ceremony that was televised. As far as I understand, that means the damned thing is the law until a court says it isn't, which I fervently hope it will. I am not certain where the recess dates play into this so long as the House and Senate conference committee pass the bill to the President and he signs it within the requisite period after submission (sitting here typing this, I cannot recall if the bill must be signed in 10 or 30 days, but it's one of those). I doubt that any timing issues were blown by the White House on this one. Also, we have the added factor that Bush has in the past indicated his intention to enforce even those bills which are not passed if he deems it to be in the national interest, another aspect of his newfound extraconstitutional dictatorship.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

And these, even before the foreword:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." Edward R. Murrow

"A patriot must alwyas be ready to defend his country against his government." Edward Abbey

and

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire

Dear Kent,

This seems to be the basis for all the chatter about why the MCA is not a law. However, the attached article is based upon a strained reading of the Constitution (rather like all that prattle referred to in earlier correspondence about the strained reading of the Treaty of Paris leading to the false conclusion that the USA was not rendered thereby wholly independent of Great Britain). The 10 day rule in the Constitution only applies if the President fails to sign the bill 10 days after submission to the President. If Congress is then in recess, that recess prevents the Congress from reconsidering the bill and thus it is not law. However, if he fails to sign in 10 days when it is in session, the bill is law nonetheless. But (and this is the point that these guys are willfully missing here) it is irrelevant if Congress is adjourned if the President signs the bill within 10 days (excluding Sundays) of submission, which is what Bush did with the MCA. Therefore, there is no constitutional question and the MCA is the law (albeit with unconstitutional and therefore patently illegal provisions that will have to be ruled upon when appropriately challenged by interested parties with standing to do so in a court of law). By the way, I have never heard of this so-called constitutional scholar Harmon Taylor, but if he subscribes to the strained reading of the 10 day provision, as he seems to do, then he must not be much of a scholar.

Keep up the fight,

http://electbarnhill.com/2006/10/24/presidents-inaction-may-equal-pocket-veto/