Obama's First Overridden Veto
With only about four months left to go in his second term in office, President Barack Obama just had his first veto overturned by Congress. Considering Obama's rather aloof attitude towards Congress (including even members of his own party), what is extraordinary isn't so much that Obama just got overturned -- it's that it hasn't happened before now. The contentiousness between the White House and the Capitol has been pretty fierce during Obama's term, but up until this week none of his vetoes has been overturned.
Historically, Obama's record is pretty remarkable. Of the seven men who preceded Obama in the Oval Office, only George H. W. Bush had just a single veto overturned by Congress -- the rest had it happen to them multiple times, from a low of two (Carter) to a high of 12 (Ford). Going back to Nixon, Obama's record of vetoing legislation is pretty low, too (the total number of vetoes, in other words, whether overturned or not). To date, Obama has vetoed 12 bills, which is exactly how many George W. Bush vetoed when he was in office (although Bush was overturned four times out of his dozen vetoes). The presidents before these two used the veto pen significantly more, from a low of 31 times (Carter) to a high of 78 times (Reagan).
If you look back even further, there are two rather odd periods which took place before Richard Nixon took office. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had 51 vetoes between them (J.F.K.'s 21 to L.B.J.'s 30), all of which held up -- Congress didn't overturn a single veto during this period. But the period just before this saw an incredible amount of vetoes, few of which were overturned. Dwight D. Eisenhower vetoed 181 bills, and was only overturned twice. Harry S Truman vetoed a whopping 250 bills, with only 12 being overturned. But the real champion was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who vetoed an extraordinary 635 bills during his four terms in office -- only nine of which were overturned. Between the three presidents, that adds up to 1066 vetoes with only 23 overrides. That's a lot of squabbling with Congress, to put it mildly.
The bill Congress just passed over President Obama's objection will likely not even stand in its present form. There is now what is being described as "instant buyer's remorse" among many in Congress, as they fully realize the implications of the new law they just passed. Revisions to the new law are already hastily being put together, in the hopes that Congress can revise the law during the lame-duck session. It's not exactly a model of good legislating, in other words.
The bill, as everyone knows by now, would allow survivors and families of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for damages resulting from the terrorist attacks. Few realistically expect such a lawsuit to be successful, but the politicians could hardly say no to the survivors (at least, that's what they all figured, in their political calculations). Well, there was that time when Democrats had to fight Republicans to get health benefits paid for the 9/11 first responders, but somehow that was different (don't ask me how, I have no real idea other than that it involved actual money from the federal budget, unlike the current law).
President Obama was worried about the precedent such a law would set, and how it might be used against Americans in the future. He's the president -- he's the one we pay to worry about such things, after all. His objections are the prime motivator behind the new effort to rewrite the bill to lessen the chances of that happening in the future. Perhaps it can be written in a way that allows Americans to sue -- but not be sued -- which we'll all find out after the election is over. Or perhaps we'll see some unintended consequences, such as survivors and families of victims of "collateral damage" drone strikes being able to sue America. This is precisely what Obama's worried about.
I have to admit that while I do sympathize with Obama's position, I can also see the international political value of such a lawsuit. Suing Saudi Arabia is going to be a tough proposition, and quite likely the only ones to ever see any money from such a lawsuit are going to be the lawyers, but it would certainly shine a light on how the Saudis have been acting for the past three or four decades (at the very least), both on the world stage and domestically.
Saudi Arabia's legal system is closer to that of the Islamic State than anything Westerners would call "justice." They execute people in public squares by chopping off their heads with a sword, to begin with. In fact, when you compare the penalties the Saudis use with the penalties the Islamic State imposes, the two are frighteningly similar. And one of the most severe crimes in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is speaking out against the monarchy.
Saudi Arabia began as a country with an agreement between the house of Saud and the Wahhabi sect of Islam. As long as the monarchy was unquestioned, the imams could set up the rest of the legal system to their liking, essentially. Wahhabism is one of the most extreme and unforgiving interpretations of Islam around, and always has been (no other Islamic country still bans women from driving a car, for instance). This wouldn't have been much of a problem for the rest of the world, if it had been limited to what happened inside of Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis spent a lot of their oil wealth on spreading their interpretation of Islam to as many places in the Muslim world as possible. Much of this money went into setting up madrasas -- schools to indoctrinate young Muslims into believing the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. The textbooks used in these schools -- the only schools most of the students ever had a chance to attend -- were unbelievably extreme and anti-Semitic. Saudi Arabia, quite plainly, taught generations of young men exactly what (and whom) to hate, and the proper intensity for showing such hatred. Many members of the Taliban were "educated" in Saudi-funded madrasas, in fact.
This is not the same thing as the Saudi government directly funding Osama Bin Laden, which is what a survivors' lawsuit will have to prove. The Saudi government is going to claim that it was never their official policy to aid Al Qaeda in any way. But they certainly turned a blind eye to wealthy Saudi citizens funding any manner of Islamic extremism all over the world, for a very long time.
This is the good that can come out of a lawsuit. The survivors probably aren't going to be able to prove direct Saudi involvement with 9/11 (although perhaps they will, stranger things have happened in courtrooms), but they will be able to focus the world on all the other ways money has flowed from their country to radical and extremist organizations that share their beliefs. Perhaps most of the world's condemnation for tacitly approving of such things might change the Saudi government's attitude, especially since the royal line of secession is about to go through a generational change (all the old guard are dying off, leaving the sons to jockey to become the next ruler, in a nutshell).
Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest recipients of U.S. foreign aid in the world, a good chunk of it military aid. But we've never really used that leverage at all, to try to get the rulers to change their ways. After 9/11 this did change to some extent, but the Saudis have a long way to go before they can reasonably claim that they are fighting Islamic terrorist organizations as hard as they possibly can.
So while I don't expect the survivors to walk away with millions of Saudi dollars each, now that they can sue I could see such a lawsuit bringing an enormous amount of pressure upon the ruling Saudis to rein in the flow of money from their citizens to all sorts of shady groups in the rest of the world. There's no guarantee that this pressure (no matter how intense) will actually change anything, mind you, but the possibility does at least exist. The Saudis are a lot more concerned with their worldwide public image today than they used to be, that's for sure. So motivating them to be more vigilant about terrorist financing could actually happen. As long as the law is rewritten so that victims of U.S. drone strikes don't start filing their own lawsuits, of course.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
He's the president -- he's the one we pay to worry about such things, after all.
And here was silly me, thinking that we lived in some sort of moderately-democratic republic, where voters and their congresscritters were supposed to worry about such things too.
Legally, a country is a country. All sovereign entities are theoretically equal. If the US can give its citizens the power to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts, then North Korea can give its citizens the power to sue the US in North Korean courts.
Hey CW
No mention of the Saudi retaliation at OPEC?
Anyway, when lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes begin the discovery process, new information has a way of turning up.
"Perhaps it can be written in a way that allows Americans to sue -- but not be sued"
Now there is some American good old fashioned neoliberal thinking... with "justice" for some.
No... that's not a compliment.
A
Let's face it, while I think this law is asinine, at least most of the World's best lawyers are in the US so it is a good import industry for us. ;)
This law is definitely going to come back to bite the U.S. in a major way! How many drone strikes killed unintended targets? How many civil wars have we funded secretly? How many countries have we armed that used those arms against their own citizens?
Mitch McConnell is blaming Obama, of course, for not preventing Congress from overriding his veto!
The law allows Americans to sue for TERRORIST acts..
A drone strike is not a terrorist act by ANY stretch of the definition..
Ergo, the US cannot be sued for drone strikes.. :^/
Once again, the wisdom of leaving military matters in the hands of military experts is clear...
Michale
Legally, a country is a country. All sovereign entities are theoretically equal. If the US can give its citizens the power to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts, then North Korea can give its citizens the power to sue the US in North Korean courts.
Absolutely North Korea can..
Lemme know how that works out for them.. :D heh
Michale
Syria is not the only Odumbo failure in the region..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-mourn-shimon-peres--and-a-dormant-middle-east-peace-process/2016/09/29/532a1eae-8665-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html
Ya gotta admit..
For a man who ya'all believe practically walks on water, he doesn't have much to show for his 8 years in office..
Michale
[5] Michale,
A drone strike is not a terrorist act by ANY stretch of the definition..
Whose "definition"? The US Congress' override of the POTUS' veto redefines US foreign immunity laws. What is to stop other countries from retaliation by passing similar or even broader waivers of sovereign immunity?
Ergo, the US cannot be sued for drone strikes.. :^/
Somebody should alert Panetta et alia that they could not be sued for drone strikes.
Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, Civil Action No. 12-1192 (RMC) 2014 U.S. Dist.
While you're at it, tell Obama he can't be sued either.
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, Civil Action No. 10-1469 (JDB) 727 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2010 U.S. Dist.
I could go on, snowflake. :)
Whose "definition"?
The only definition that matters... From those who have been there and done that...
What is to stop other countries from retaliation by passing similar or even broader waivers of sovereign immunity?
Given the anti-America fervor that Odumbo has fostered, what's to stop other countries from doing it regardless??
Somebody should alert Panetta et alia that they could not be sued for drone strikes.
Yer right, hon.. I should rephrase..
The US cannot be successfully sued for drone strikes.. :D
I could go on, snowflake. :)
As I am sure you will, honey bunch... :D
Michale
But you were wrong about the POTUS/TwoManRule so I am sure you'll be wrong about this as well..
Like I said, when it comes to military matters, security matters and LEO matters, my bona-fides are well-established and unchallenged...
Michale
But, hay... Give it a shot. I am kinda laid up today, so I need some distraction.. :D
Michale
Ergo, the US cannot be sued for drone strikes.. :^/
Somebody should alert Panetta et alia that they could not be sued for drone strikes.
'Sides.. I was referring to being sued under a new law that would allow other countries to sue the US for Terrorist Acts..
A drone strike, by definition, is not a terrorist act...
Michale
This is not "buyers remorse." This is "l've showboated
this untenable legislation to my constituency as far as I can." This is a meaningful difference.
Michale,
Whose "definition"?
The only definition that matters... From those who have been there and done that...
Are you seriously arguing you had anything to do with the promulgation, passage, or alteration of the foreign immunity laws of the United States or any other country?
Given the anti-America fervor that Odumbo has fostered, what's to stop other countries from doing it regardless??
Why argue a hypothetical laced with conservative rhetoric when it's not really the issue? Oh, right. Because that's your MO.
The US cannot be successfully sued for drone strikes.. :D
A $1.2 million payout by the US to a family of a victim killed by drone strike outside a declared war zone makes the filing of a lawsuit quite unnecessary.
A drone strike, by definition, is not a terrorist act
So if Cuba launched a drone strike on your house, would the United States not consider that an act of terrorism?
Later, tater. OAO YOYO I'm TCB. :)
Are you seriously arguing you had anything to do with the promulgation, passage, or alteration of the foreign immunity laws of the United States or any other country?
I am simply saying that I know the definition of terrorism..
Do you??
Why argue a hypothetical laced with conservative rhetoric when it's not really the issue?
As opposed to your Left Wingery hypothetical rhetoric??
So if Cuba launched a drone strike on your house, would the United States not consider that an act of terrorism?
It would depend on why Cuba launched a drone strike on my house.
But I thought we were talking about US drone strikes..
I realize you can't win an argument unless you create a strawman one.. I forgive you..
Later, tater. OAO YOYO I'm TCB. :)
"Brave Sir Robin ran away.. Bravely ran away away...
When danger reared it's ugly head, she bravely turned her tail and fled.."
Michale
A drone strike, by definition, is not a terrorist act
So if Cuba launched a drone strike on your house, would the United States not consider that an act of terrorism?
My my my, aren't we pedantic today..
You must still be hurtin' from when I whacked yer wee-wee over the POTUS/TwoManRule issue.. :D
But hay... I'll be your huckleberry... :D
A US Drone Strike conducted by the US Military or one of it's paramilitary branches is, by definition, not a terrorist attack...
If you have any FACTS (look who I am asking for facts.. :^/ ) that refutes this....
"Well, I'm all ears.. "
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
Michale
Clinton Sees Post-Debate Bounce In State Polls:
Clinton has taken a 7-point lead against Trump in Michigan, with 42 percent of the vote to his 35 percent, according to a Detroit News/WDIV poll. In a two-way match-up that excludes third-party candidates, Clinton still maintains her 7-point advantage.
She’s ahead by the same margin in New Hampshire, taking 42 percent of the vote to Trump’s 35 percent, according to a WBUR poll.
And in Florida, Clinton leads Trump by 4 points, 46 percent to 42 percent, according to a Mason-Dixon poll.
According to the RCP polls (the ONLY polls of relevance here in Weigantia...) All the states you mention are tossup states...
If yer so sure that Trump is going to lose.. Put yer pride where your mouth is.. :D
Michale
Balthy
My response to your comment on yesterdays post is up.
The neoliberals want Dems to be uninformed... just like the neocons and Repubs which is constantly on display here.
A
John M
42 to 35?
So, we're up to 23% in the neither column.
Good news.
A
Trump is an EMBARRASSMENT. Sad! #MachadoMeltdown
Check out Trump's Twitter rants at the link or at least check out the picture of Trump and Alicia Machado circa 1997 wherein Trump displays his man boobs.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-tweets-alicia-machado/502415/
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Trump really does look like a lot like Fat Bastard. Sad! #SeparatedAtBirth
Oh, behave! *LOL*
Michale,
As CW wrote: President Obama was worried about the precedent such a law would set, and how it might be used against Americans in the future.
THAT was my angle in my questions/posts. You said otherwise, but the fact is that United States leaders have already been sued on multiple occasions regarding drone strikes, and the US has actually recently paid $1+ million to families of drone-strike victims' killed outside a declared war zone.
I asked "whose definition" of "terrorist act" because the point was that the veto override of the bill that redefines US foreign immunity will most likely lead to reconsideration by other nations regarding their own immunity laws protecting US diplomats and soldiers. Additionally, the discovery process in these lawsuits generates inconceivable demands for production of sensitive intelligence, and that opens up whole lots of additional cans of worms.
When other nations decide to alter the terms of our international relationships and/or to redefine their immunity definitions to keep up with the nuthouse that is Congress, they're going to have to address the multiple cans of worms they made with this veto override.
McConnell is somehow blaming Obama for the veto override... still busy trying to make Obama a 1-term president. Sad!
You said otherwise, but the fact is that United States leaders have already been sued on multiple occasions regarding drone strikes, and the US has actually recently paid $1+ million to families of drone-strike victims' killed outside a declared war zone.
But we're talking about TERRORISM, not simply being sued..
When other nations decide to alter the terms of our international relationships and/or to redefine their immunity definitions to keep up with the nuthouse that is Congress, they're going to have to address the multiple cans of worms they made with this veto override.
That's fear-mongering, unsupported by any facts whatsoever...
The entire point is that the US doesn't do terrorism, so there is no worry about being sued for terrorism..
Michale
Check out Trump's Twitter rants at the link or at least check out the picture of Trump and Alicia Machado circa 1997 wherein Trump displays his man boobs.
Is that the same Alicia Machado who is a hooker??
A great match for the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton..
They all frak people for money...
Michale
Michale,
That's fear-mongering, unsupported by any facts whatsoever...
It's not "fear-mongering" to state that Congress is going to have to address the unintended consequences they've created. Tell the 28 senators who've already sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer expressing their concerns about amending the law in the future that they're "fear-mongering."
The entire point is that the US doesn't do terrorism, so there is no worry about being sued for terrorism..
You really should alert all those Senators in Congress that "there is no worry." *ROTFLMAO*
It's not "fear-mongering" to state that Congress is going to have to address the unintended consequences they've created.
Yes it is..
Just like it was "fear-mongering" to claim that a Brexit would end the UK economy and the sky would come crashing down...
Tell the 28 senators who've already sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer expressing their concerns about amending the law in the future that they're "fear-mongering."
Be glad to. What are their phone numbers..
You really should alert all those Senators in Congress that "there is no worry." *ROTFLMAO*
Like I said, I would be glad to..
It's nothing but fear-mongering..
President Odumbo didn't get his way and now he is throwing a tantrum and predicting all sorts of dire consequences that will never come to pass...
Michale
Just like it was "fear-mongering" to claim that a Brexit would end the UK economy and the sky would come crashing down...
And, as usual with Left Wingery fear mongering and their THE PLANET WILL BE DESTROYED AND THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! hysteria....
It NEVER came to pass...
Michale
Michale,
President Odumbo didn't get his way and now he is throwing a tantrum and predicting all sorts of dire consequences that will never come to pass...
No, snowflake. He warned them of possible consequences BEFORE they overrode the veto. Obama sent them his veto message:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/23/veto-message-president-s2040
He also wrote McConnell and Reid a letter and phoned BEFORE their override:
“As I noted in my message vetoing the bill and reiterated on our call yesterday, I strongly believed that enacting [the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act] into law would be detrimental to U.S. national interests.”
Both House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell have stated that JASTA could have unintended consequences — including the fact that it could leave U.S. soldiers open to retaliation by foreign governments — and they're going to have to revisit it. Senator Corker along with several others have said the bill is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts, Corker stating "what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers” and said that US personnel could find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.
Yes it is..
Just like it was "fear-mongering" to claim that a Brexit would end the UK economy and the sky would come crashing down...
*LOL* You could save yourself some trouble and start cutting and pasting this phrase I wrote just for you:
"I GOT NOTHING so I'm changing the subject to an unrelated straw man argument riddled with hyperbole that most likely neither you or anyone else ever posted."
Be glad to. What are their phone numbers..
Look them up yourself, you lazy *flake*. Please do let us all know how your calls go. :D
For the record, since everyone's moved on to the next thread: Congress' override of Obama's veto was short sighted and stupid. My kudos to Harry Reid, the lone dissenter. He should get a Most Impressive Democrat award for that, or something. The rest will, I'm sure, end up regretting this rash vote.
Revisions to the new law are already hastily being put together, in the hopes that Congress can revise the law during the lame-duck session. - CW
Like you, CW, I'm no fan of the Saudi state. If they weren't swimming in oil and dough they'd likely be international pariahs, like Iran, due to their embrace of religious extremism.
But the safety of US citizens abroad, both physically and legally is a concern of mine, since I once lived overseas, and was oft reminded that I 'wasn't in Kansas anymore'. If we start carving out exceptions for ourselves in international law, we'll have no moral authority (there's that term again) to complain when any other country does the same. I sincerely hope that this is fixed, so that we are not ourselves the instigators of such a setback for American interests and American citizens abroad.
No, snowflake. He warned them of possible consequences BEFORE they overrode the veto.
Yea, sweet cheeks.. Just like he warned the UK of the possible consequences BEFORE the Brexit vote..
Odumbo was wrong then..
He's wrong now...
*LOL* You could save yourself some trouble and start cutting and pasting this phrase I wrote just for you:
It is related to fear-mongering from Odumbo, which is the subject of this particular discussion..
Michale
Congress' override of Obama's veto was short sighted and stupid.
Of course it was... :^/
At least, to someone whose nose is so far up Odumbo's ass, it's tickling his tonsils.... :D
But the safety of US citizens abroad, both physically and legally is a concern of mine
Only when a Democrat is POTUS.. You don't give a rip about Americans when the POTUS is a GOP'er...
If we start carving out exceptions for ourselves in international law, we'll have no moral authority (there's that term again) to complain when any other country does the same. I sincerely hope that this is fixed, so that we are not ourselves the instigators of such a setback for American interests and American citizens abroad.
There is no "exemption".. If the US commits terrorist acts, then it can.. it SHOULD be held responsible...
But as a matter of policy and fact, the US doesn't commit terrorist acts...
So.....
Michale
It's all quite simple..
Odumbo didn't get his way so he is whining and crying...
That's it..
Michale