Talk:List of United States presidential vetoes

message: I seriously doubt that Donald Trump has vetoed 200 pieces of legislation as shown in this article.71.209.223.89 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Trump Vetoes

message: Does FDR hold the record? 
Surely there are some other Presidential vetoes interesting enough to worth noting.
Nixon is shown as having more vetoes overridden that he actually made?  This cannot possibly be right
Also, if someone wants to do the research (I'm a Brit so I don't know where to find this stuff) it would be interesting to know why the Presidents with lots of vetoes had so many - unless it is just facing a Congress controlled by the other party.  Jonathan 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the table. NoIdeaNick 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures

message: <S>Please note that as of when I am writing this, THOMAS is still reporting that HR 1591 is cleared for the White House (it was so cleared on April 26).  The veto isn't complete until the President returns the bill to the originating chamber (in this case the House) with his objections noted (see Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2).  He gets ten days exempting Sundays to decide, (I assume the day it is cleared counts as day 1), so Monday, May 7 is his last day to act on it. –Pakman044 11:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just another note that as of 3:35pm EDT, there has been no official word that HR 1591 has been vetoed.  The current word is that he'll do so privately and then "make a statement" at 6:10pm .  Please don't add this to the table until it is reported that he actually vetoes it (not that he is going to veto it). –Pakman044 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HR 1591 (2007)

message: I created a new template for computing how many votes are needed to override a veto.  The use is:
If everyone is present and voting, you need  votes to override in the Senate.
If everyone is present and voting, you need  votes to override in the Senate.
–Pakman044 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New control template

message: *If the date is full (month, day, year), then it should all be linked.  Wikipedia can only convert full dates.
**Yes: March 42006 or 2006-03-04.
**No: March 4, 2006.
*When possible, bill names should be linked. Sometimes this will lead to a redlink.  Maybe a Redirect will solve this, but even a redlink is sometimes OK.
**Preferably the full bill's name: District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997 and then, perhaps, redirect to the partial name, District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act.
**If not the name, then link the subject. District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997.
*Link to .  The parameters are
**: ordinal Congress (1-110);
**: bill type (S., H.R., etc.) but periods are optional;
**: bill number (1-?)—Markles 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the Presidents vetoed so many bills that they would need their own article just on the ones that President vetoed if all were listed. Most notably, FDR. Jon 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: The totals listed (as of today) are very different from the numbers cited in http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes17891988.pdf.  —Markles 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data needs correcting

message: I am removing the pocket veto on .  The THOMAS listing for the bill simply says that it was "cleared for the White House" on May 22.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it was presented to the President that day, so we don't know when the 10 day excluding Sundays clock begins.  Further, even if it was the day it was presented to him, vetoes during recesses of Congress generally are not pocket vetoes, but rather would be a bill enacted without the President's signature.  So I'd recommend we sit on this one until further development occurs on THOMAS. –Pakman044 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Time to start the 10 day clock.  THOMAS now reports that it was presented to the President on Monday, June 4 (none of this "cleared for White House" garbage), so Bush will get until Thursday or Friday next week (I always forget whether ten days counts the day that the President gets the bill or starting the next day).  Seeing that I haven't heard anything noisy from him on this bill, I'm wondering if he might let it slip by without his signature or otherwise attach a signing statement to it? –Pakman044 05:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, but let me remind everyone again: it's not for us to decide that this has been or has not been pocket vetoed.  Even after the 10-day clock, we need a reliable independent source.  See WP:NOT#OR.—Markles 21:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since Congress is back in session until the first week of July, there's no way the bill can be pocket vetoed now. If the President does not want the bill to become law, he has to veto it outright. If he does not veto or sign it in 10-days, it becomes law. Healthy speculation is, well, healthy, on the talk page, but let's wait for confirmation.Dcmacnut 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Concur. –Pakman044 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S. 214 (2007)

message: (2007), the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 cleared the House by a vote of 247-176 (House Roll Call Vote # 443); it had earlier cleared the Senate 63-34.  As this article mentions though, this bill is almost certain to be vetoed (probably sometime next week I would think).  But let's not add it to the list (and revert back attempts) until there are accounts that Bush has vetoed it (not will veto it) or THOMAS reports the veto.  Who knows; if S. 214 is veto-bound too, S. 5 could get vetoed first. –Pakman044 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an FYI update, S. 5 was presented to the President today (June 12).  Same idea as mentioned earlier (wait until actual veto reports, not speculation, or "will veto"), although my guess is that this one isn't going to take very long.  –Pakman044 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S. 5 (2007) - Preemptive reminder

message: It appears that Bush's most recent veto is of , since that bill was presented to the President on October 2.  It is difficult to say since I haven't a news story yet report the actual bill number. –Pakman044 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recent veto (10/3)

message: President                               	Regularvetoes	Pocketvetoes	Totalvetoes	Vetoesoverridden
Presidential Vetoes, previous presidents	1484         	1066        	2550       	106
George W. Bush                          	6            	0           	6          	1
I take it that most anyone here can do simple math operations such as 1484+5 and so forth. –Pakman044 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just so we don't have to repeatedly look this up....

message: HR 4986 is listed here as pocket vetoed, but signed into law on its own page.  Someone needs to clarify this.199.76.156.60 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing "HR 4986" anywhere in the text of the main article nor am I seeing any articles with that title. Jon (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HR 4986

message: Can someone explain or clarify why both "H.J.RES.64" and "H.R. 3808" situation are considered pocket vetoes?
My understanding is that, under the Constitution, the President can do 1 of 3 things when a bill comes to his desk:
(1) Sign the bill:  The bill becomes law.
(2) Not sign the bill, and return it "to that House in which it shall have originated" (along "with his Objections", or a "Memorandum of Disapproval"):  This is called a Veto, and Congress can try to override it, or not take up the business at all.
(3) Not sign the bill, and not do anything at all:  If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is still in session, it becomes law.  If, by the end of the 10 day limit, Congress is NOT in session, it is voided (in this case, it is called a pocket veto).
It can only be a pocket veto if the President does not do anything at all.  By sending it back to the House, it is just a plain-old veto, not a pocket veto.
No where did the Constitution say that Congress cannot take up overriding procedure AFTER it reconvenes, that there's a time limit as to when it should be taken up.  Therefore, both the "H.J.RES.64" veto, as well as "H.R. 3808" situation, are both plain old veto because the President sent the bill back along with a written objection.Finestela (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This New York Times story highlights another possible veto. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama Vetoes

message: Could someone please round out the vetoes of President Reagan?  For instance, on September 26, 1986, President Reagan vetoed the act providing economic sanctions against the Government of South Africa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.131 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reagan Vetoes

message: Clinton also pocket vetoed Jerusalem Embassy Act.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.1.93 (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope SCAH (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton Pocket Veto

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States presidential vetoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081130131813/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002881919 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002881919
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121185510/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggNjwBmB-thb9wvB3eE1HjZZxLMA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggNjwBmB-thb9wvB3eE1HjZZxLMA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719064844/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002916357 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002916357
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article says, "Trump has yet to veto any legislation presented to him by Congress." But didn't Pres Trump veto the continuing resolution which led to the govt shutdown? (PeacePeace (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, It never got to his desk SCAH (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did not Pres Trump veto the continuing resolution which led to govt shutdown? 

message: Note "the president of the United States" is uncapitalized because "president of the United States" is preceded by modifier "the", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add  to your message to let me know.) 00:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: The article states "Override attempt failed in Senate, 53–36 (66 needed)".  Where does the figure of 66 come from?  Overrides require a 2/3 majority of those voting, which in this case is 89, so only 60 votes would be required. Perhaps the author mistakenly added 53 and 36 to get 99, and took 2/3 of that total? Obliqueref (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump's 6th Veto 

message: "President Biden has not yet vetoed any bills passed by Congress." - IMO we should include a date e.g. 1 January 2022 because otherwise when he vetoes anything, this information will become automatically false. Grillofrances (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a month/year date for this information. —ADavidB 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Biden