Shane F. Ingate wrote:
>
> >>Note that the Gov. has the right to veto the bill,
> >>or refuse to sign it, but both will have the same affect.
> >*******************************
> >Shane,
> >Actually, the only action that kills the bill is a veto. It will
>pass or
> >become law if he signs it or not.
>
> Barry,
> Mmmm, that confuses me. In the Union Tribune last week,
> Wilson wrote a letter stating the reasons why he refused to sign SB500
> (the "Saturday Night Special" handgun control bill). He did not
> mention veto, only that he would not sign the bill. As a result,
> SB500 is no more.
I suppose this is one for the California constitutional scholars, but at
the Federal level, this is known as a "pocket veto," I believe. When a
bill is sent to the President, he has (what? not sure of the timing)
something like ten days to sign the bill or send it back to Congress for
requested amendments. If he signs it, it's law. If he sends it back,
it's still alive and can be acted upon immediately if Congress wishes.
But, if he simply sits on it, and doesn't sign it, the bill is
effectively killed, and Congress, if they want to try again, have to put
it on the docket again, reschedule everything as if it's a new bill.
Many state governments are loosely based on the Federal system, so it's
a possibility that California has such pocket veto provisions in its
Constitution.
Cheers.
--
My other Triumph runs, but....
|