4 ms·
He also threatened to veto the NDAA[1]. I wouldn't put my money on him vetoing CISPA. [1 http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-threatening-
by ryanSrich 14y ago
He also threatened to veto the NDAA[1]. I wouldn't put my money on him vetoing CISPA.
[1 http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-threatening-veto-992860 http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-th...]
- bradddd 14y agoI was coming to say the same thing. I appreciated that he made the statement before the vote though. Note that it appeared to matter.
- myko 14y agoHe threatened to veto the NDAA in one form, the bill was changed, and he didn't veto it as the changes he requested were made.
- criley 14y agoThe veto threat is more than just a simple threat to veto, it's a tactic to make the executive opinion obvious and to try and influence lawmakers to change a bill before delivering it. They obviously don't have to listen.
- pekk 14y agoAn NDAA passes regularly to fund the armed forces, including benefits for veterans etc. Every President in recent memory signed a bunch of them. That's not comparable to CISPA
- pyre 14y agoI think it's reference to to the bill that allowed gitmo-like 'hold indefinitely' powers to happen to US citizens on US soil.
- rayiner 14y agoSame bill. Also, the brouhaha over that bill is over how it might be interpreted in a parallel universe where Hamdi v. Rumsfeld doesn't exist.
- GHFigs 14y agoMost people seem to not understand that that's the same bill. The NDAA is an annual bill specifying the defense budget. The indefinite detention provisions that upset so many people are attached to that bill. As the President cannot veto part of a bill, vetoing the NDAA over those provisions would literally mean vetoing the entire defense budget.
- homosaur 14y agoThat's fine. Veto the budget. Send them back to the drawing board. That would have been the best outcome.
- GHFigs 14y agoI definitely understand that view, but on that drawing board are the words "two-thirds majority". It comes down to a choice between an impotent veto and an impotent signing statement.
- Vivtek 14y agoThen choose the impotent veto and stand on the side of justice. I don't see that as a problem.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- lmkg 14y agoObama disagrees with some details of the bill, not with the broad outlines. He wants the bill to pass, but he wants some also wants some changes made. He's using (threat of) veto power as leverage to get those changes made. A veto would be a blunt and somewhat counter-productive response, but veto power is the main piece of leverage that comes with the office. So yeah, he actually likes the bill and the likelihood is that he will sign it or some form of it. The veto threat is just part of the dance.
- pjungwir 14y agoSorry for the dumb question: Is your comment about the NDAA or CISPA?
- lmkg 14y agoIt's a general strategy, so it applies to the veto threats to both of those bills, as well as a number of others. I think it applies moreso to CISPA than to the NDAA, because my impression is that he has smaller reservations about the details of CISPA.