Talk:Pocket veto

message: The Constitution is unclear as to whether an adjournment other than the adjournment sine die allows a pocket veto to take place, and this issue has never been decisively settled by the courts, since no President has been willing to risk an unfavorable ruling. 69.243.41.28 06:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional lack of clarity

message: To help, I was able to find that the executive branch of government in  Finland has the constitutional power for a pocket veto. --Kenneth M Burke 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand the phrase is also commonly used in India. I've tagged the article. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: US centric

message: The article states that the first president to use the pocket veto was Madison, yet the list of presidential vetos shows Washington as having used it.  Anyone? Kaiguy (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington didn't use it. It was vandalism in  (preceding edit by same IP confirms vandalism). I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I have moved your posts to below the posts they are commenting on. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First US President

message: I'm reverting this edit because it doesn't explain why an entire section was removed. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "legal status" removed without explanation 

message: Having a heading called 'current controversy' is not very wise. Can someone with a knowledge of the issue rename it? It seems to be 2 years (and one president) out of date already, so not very "current"
DermottBanana (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the name at least to "Recent usage", however our description of the controversy sounds like old Wikipedia:Recentism. With List of United States presidential vetoes, I think we should reconsider this section.  —Mrwojo (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Controversy 

message: There is a claim near the end of the article that Lincoln's pocket veto of the Wade-Davis Bill evaded agents of Congress, in a similar manner to more recent pocket vetos. I can't say whether that's true, but I'm unable to find reference to it elsewhere, including in the Wade-Davis Bill article. Offhand it looks as if the assertion in that paragraph wandered from "pocket vetoed despite Congressional attempts to force a return of the bill" to "pocket vetoed". Ideally this discussion could be moved into the context of various counters to a pocket veto in other political systems. - toh (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical use in the US 

message: This is a concept of United States government. As far as I can tell. Saying it has a US bias is unfounded. Removing template. Johnathlon (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centrism

message: Hey Rogermw, the section on recent usage doesn't suffer from a bias towards recentism, the US section does. A recent usage section will inherently be about recent usage. In putting a  tag in the US section I'm saying the section as a whole (given its balance of coverage of recent events and historical context) suffers from recentism. Does that make sense? Johnathlon (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: Getting rid of the word "president" in the lead. I'm not sure all presidents in the world have veto power. Even if so, saying "official with veto power" would still include every office it previously did. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to the lead 

message: Does what Bush did count as a pocket veto?  It says up above that he has no pocket vetos, yet this bill was not passed.  He did sign it with fixes, and another bill was, but, BUT, the bill was indeed not passed.  So yes?  In that case, Bush would have 1 pocket veto, and Barrack Obama would be the only one to have none.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.60.70 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The bill was not passed because the House asserted that it is able to override it, but didn't. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:BD4E:38EC:E871:394B (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's One Pocket Veto