[Strutz]

I'm a bit confused by something here. I admit that I do lack in my knowledge of the US political process in these matters and I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me.

$1:

U.S. President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have approved construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The move, while expected, is still significant because it is only the third time that the current U.S. president has opted to shoot down a bill passed by Congress.

Then...

$1:

A presidential veto can be overridden if a bill gets two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress — the Senate and the House of Representatives.

If Congress already passed the bill, which Obama vetoed, why would they need to vote on it again as the 2nd quote suggests to override the veto? I would think that in order for it to pass to begin with that the majority of those in Congress wanted it to be so. Is it because the 2nd round of voting is specifically to override the presidential veto rather than voting on the original issue?

[martin14]

Strutz Strutz:

$1:

A presidential veto can be overridden if a bill gets two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress — the Senate and the House of Representatives.

If Congress already passed the bill, which Obama vetoed, why would they need to vote on it again as the 2nd quote suggests to override the veto? I would think that in order for it to pass to begin with that the majority of those in Congress wanted it to be so. Is it because the 2nd round of voting is specifically to override the presidential veto rather than voting on the original issue?

Presidential veto can be overridden by a vote in Congress that has 67/100 Senators and 290/435 votes in the House.

The first vote didn't pass with that level of support.

[Strutz]

martin14 martin14:

Presidential veto can be overridden by a vote in Congress that has 67/100 Senators and 290/435 votes in the House.

The first vote didn't pass with that level of support.

So obviously a lower % of support is required for a bill to pass to begin with then. Is it just over 50%?

[martin14]

Generally, yes.

[stratos]

Strutz & Martin, that's exactly how it works. This was set in place so a President could not Veto down something that the vast majority of congress voted for.

[Regina]

So where are we with the votes?

[stratos]

At this time I'm not sure but as mentioned earlier it is doubhtful if the veto will be over turned. It passed the first time but not with enough votes to make it look like it could get 2/3 majority. (67 votes in the Senate)

[martin14]

Regina Regina:

So where are we with the votes?

I was just thinking that, didn't think it would be close for a supermajority.

Turns out, it's not that far away.


http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... stone-vote


Senate 63 votes, needs 67.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html


House 266.

[stratos]

What is most likely happening is that those you initially voted for this bill are talking with those who did not trying to sway them to vote for it. If they can not get enough they will let it die. IF they are close 1-2 votes away and think they can get the needed votes OR if they think it can some how harm the Dems come election time they will have another vote.

If the vote fails that kills the bill, IF the vote passes the bill then it is law no matter how the President feels about it. He can not veto it again.

[Delwin]

Obama has been the most isolationist president in recent history. If you compiled a list of all of the countries and rated their relationships before and after. I think it would be difficult to find many which could be considered better after Obama, especially if you consider all of US's closest allies.

[Thanos]

Not isolationist but definitely more protectionist. Not that it really means anything, because given the US involvements overseas and the ever-expanding free trade deals that no one in the US protests against anymore (not even the Obama-era Democrats), 'protectionist' is a particularly hollow label these days.

[Public_Domain]

[BRAH]

[BartSimpson]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Delwin Delwin:

Obama has been the most isolationist president in recent history. If you compiled a list of all of the countries and rated their relationships before and after. I think it would be difficult to find many which could be considered better after Obama, especially if you consider all of US's closest allies.

I disagree, Anti-Americanism seems to be at an all-time low. Bush set the bar very low.

Former President Jimmy Carter agrees with Delwin. This is a direct quote of what Carter said in an interview with the Aspen Institute in July:

$1:

“On the world stage, just to be objective about it as I can, I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over.”

[BRAH]