# Reverse Veto?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [July 15, 2015, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211 "2015-07-15T03:11:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 19\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/21 "2015-07-16T14:46:13Z")

</div>

> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> _Quote: Originally Posted by sbunny8: No, I meant more along the lines of: The President wants to spend about $20,000,000 to transfer all the prisoners out of Gitmo and shut down the prison but before he can get it done, Congress writes a bill that says something like “We will not give any money at all to shut down Gitmo”. Then the President could veto it. And then Congress could try to override the veto._
> 
> Except that’s not how it is done. For one reason the motion violates parliamentary law.

I’m not sure what you mean by “that’s not how it is done” because they did it. In January of 2009, President Obama announced that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that year. In May of 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to H.R. 2346 (the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009) by a vote of 90–6. The amendment specifically blocked funds needed for the transfer or release of any Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/22 "2015-07-16T15:08:56Z")

</div>

Funds appropriated for government operations are typically general in nature. For example, some number of millions of dollars are made available to the IRS to employ people to review tax returns. Such an appropriation does not generally go to the level of detail like, “Of this amount, such-and-such dollars is for implementation of Executive Order 12345.” Implementation of such an EO would be assumed when funds are appropriated for the IRS workers to do their review of tax returns.

Should Executive Order 12345 be controversial, Congress may choose to block funding that would be used for its implementation. So funding for the operations of the IRS may be appropriated with restrictions, such as that none of the funds may be used for that specific purpose, but all other general operations of the IRS may proceed.

Long story short: Congress may of course pass legislation that prohibits the use of funds for particular activities. That is an essential part of the power of the purse.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/23 "2015-07-16T15:29:57Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Funds appropriated for government operations are typically general in nature. For example, some number of millions of dollars are made available to the IRS to employ people to review tax returns. Such an appropriation does not generally go to the level of detail like, “Of this amount, such-and-such dollars is for implementation of Executive Order 12345.” Implementation of such an EO would be assumed when funds are appropriated for the IRS workers to do their review of tax returns.
> 
> Should Executive Order 12345 be controversial, Congress may choose to block funding that would be used for its implementation. So funding for the operations of the IRS may be appropriated with restrictions, such as that none of the funds may be used for that specific purpose, but all other general operations of the IRS may proceed.
> 
> Long story short: Congress may of course pass legislation that prohibits the use of funds for particular activities. That is an essential part of the power of the purse.

I think this would be the issue. the government has various funds appropriated for the assorted day-to-day functions of each department, plus specific funds earmarked for various specific reasons. (depends how detailed the budget gets.) This is the essence of government (or any organization). The body responsible for approving funds (congress, company board, etc.) approves spending and the executives spend the money in the manner approved.

To prohibit these funds being used for a specific purpose (mass transport of prisoners from Guantanamo to mainland) congress can pass a law saying “the funds previously allocated cannot be used for…” The president could veto it, but given the bill passed with a 90-6 vote, a veto would be guaranteed to be overridden. I assume the president could veto to stall, and quickly spend the money before the bill goes through the override vote, but why ask for controversy?

As for the Iran sanctions, not sure what the congress could do. It’s not like a lot of funds for implementation are required if the departments say simply “the following regulations? Not applicable from now on.” I suppose they could write laws to the same effect as the regulations, “no bank transfers, no equipment shipped to Iran”. Even if the president’s veto is overridden, I’m guessing all those sort of rules have exceptions, and all the president has to do is say “allow all items as exceptions.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/24 "2015-07-16T16:16:35Z")

</div>

> [@sbunny8](#):
>
> I’m not sure what you mean by “that’s not how it is done” because they did it. In January of 2009, President Obama announced that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that year. In May of 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to H.R. 2346 (the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009) by a vote of 90–6. The amendment specifically blocked funds needed for the transfer or release of any Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

The text of the amendment is [here](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/111th-congress/senate-amendment/1133/text/1422613)  
Are you referring to

> [@](#):
>
> Sec. 310. None of the funds provided in this title may be  
> used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in  
> fiscal years 2008 or 2009 appropriations to the Department of  
> Defense or to initiate a procurement or research,  
> development, test and evaluation new start program without  
> prior written notification to the congressional defense  
> committees.  
> Sec. 311. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made  
> available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or  
> expended by the United States Government for the purpose of  
> establishing any military installation or base for the  
> purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United  
> States Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

Because that is not the same thing. Funds were authorized and Congress is specifying where they may or may not be spent. That is not the same as a bill to not authorize funds. If this bill were vetoed, it means that no funds whatsoever would be authorized and not mean only the negative section is vetoed and therefore Congress has to spend the money.

Or are you referring to

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure 
> Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) of the 
> Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 
> 2687 note), $230,900,000, to remain available until expended: 
> Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
> such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out 
> operation and maintenance, planning and design and military 
> construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.
> 
> ```

That’s not a negative motion either. It simply says the new appropriations must be spent on the bases specified in the law.

So once again, authorizing money in a general appropriations bill and specifying what it can and cannot be spent on is NOT the same as a motion saying “we will not spend money on this.”

Also, I cannot find ANYTHING in the amendment referring to the closure of Gitmo except maybe the above section referring to closures already specified by law. If you have a different section you are referring to please quote it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/25 "2015-07-16T16:22:45Z")

</div>

> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> The text of the amendment is [here](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/111th-congress/senate-amendment/1133/text/1422613)  
> Are you referring to
> 
> Because that is not the same thing.

He’s referring to this, which was in the final version of the legislation, and signed into law.

Sec. 14103. (a) None of the funds made available in this or any prior  
Act may be used to release an individual who is detained as of the date  
of enactment of this Act, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into  
the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of  
Columbia.

```
(b) None of the funds made available in this or any prior Act may be 

```

used to transfer an individual who is detained as of the date of  
enactment of this Act, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the  
purpose of detention in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii,  
or the District of Columbia, except as provided in subsection (c).  
(c) None of the funds made available in this or  
any prior Act may be used to transfer an individual who is detained, as  
of the date of enactment of this Act, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,  
Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the  
District of Columbia, for the purposes of prosecuting such individual,  
or detaining such individual during legal proceedings, until 45 days  
after the plan detailed in subsection (d) is received.  
And with that, I say this discussion has gotten so wound around the axle that I can’t figure out what people are disagreeing about.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/26 "2015-07-16T16:34:10Z")

</div>

> [@Jinx](#):
>
> That is very succinct! Yet, I never considered a Bill written in the negative. I worked in the patent office as a Patent Examiner, and when starting out, I asked if an invention could be described in the negative to state what it IS NOT as opposed to what IT IS. The best answer I was given is that “this is just not done”. And yet, here we see Congress has nonetheless done it. Interesting.

Please find even one example of this. sbunny8 is incorrect. A bill is always takes a positive action where there may be sections that are negative like “We apportion $5,000,000,000 to be disbursed to women’s clinics but money shall not be given to a clinic performing abortions.” That is not the same as a bill that says “We will not apportion money for abortion clinics.” What is the difference?

Will first of all, in the first case if it passes something changes (more money is apportioned) but if the second motion passes nothing would change. It is a principal of parliamentary law that a motion that if passes changes nothing is out of order as dilatory. Could Congress ignore parliamentary law? Sure but it takes a chance that SCOTUS can get involve and SCOTUS does take parliamentary law into account such as in _Ballin_

> [@](#):
>
> and here the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body.

> [@](#):
>
> In State v. Deliesseline, 1 McCord, 52, it is said. ‘For, according to the principle of all the cases referred to, a quorum possesses all the powers of the whole body; a majority of which quorum must, of course govern. … The constitutions of this state and the United States declare that a majority shall be a quorum to do business, but a majority of that quorum are sufficient to decide the most important question.’

Here is the second difference and more germane to our discussion. If the first bill passes and is vetoed, the outcome is clear - no money whatsoever is appropriated. If the second bill is passed and vetoed what would the outcome be? Would money HAVE to be appropriated for abortion clinics? How much.

So I challenge you and sbunny8 to find ANY bill ever written that if passed means nothing whatsoever would happen.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/27 "2015-07-16T16:56:06Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> He’s referring to this, which was in the final version of the legislation, and signed into law.
> 
> Sec. 14103. (a) None of the funds made available in this or any prior  
> Act may be used to release an individual who is detained as of the date  
> of enactment of this Act, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into  
> the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of  
> Columbia.
> 
> ```
> (b) None of the funds made available in this or any prior Act may be 
> 
> ```
> 
> used to transfer an individual who is detained as of the date of  
> enactment of this Act, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the  
> purpose of detention in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii,  
> or the District of Columbia, except as provided in subsection (c).  
> (c) None of the funds made available in this or  
> any prior Act may be used to transfer an individual who is detained, as  
> of the date of enactment of this Act, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,  
> Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the  
> District of Columbia, for the purposes of prosecuting such individual,  
> or detaining such individual during legal proceedings, until 45 days  
> after the plan detailed in subsection (d) is received.  
> And with that, I say this discussion has gotten so wound around the axle that I can’t figure out what people are disagreeing about.

Well that is not found in the amendment sbunny8 refers to.  
The issue is that according to sbunny8 and referred to by the OP and now Jinx, the bill  
“We apportion $X to the Department of Defense. None of this money shall be used to close down Gitmo.”  
is equivalent to a bill saying  
“We shall not apportion any money for the closure of Gitmo.”  
and claiming that if the second bill passes and is vetoed then Congress has to fund the closing of Gitmo.

I claim there has never been a bill that as a whole state that actions would not occur\*, a so-called negative law that if vetoed would require Congress to take action. Every bill written creates a positive law in which some action would occur and if vetoed the status quo is maintained.  
\*Leaving out bills that rescind previous laws.

My challenge to those who claim Congress can and has written negative laws to please show me one bill, any bill that if passed and vetoed would create a positive law (e.g. require Congress to fund the closing of Gitmo)  
This is not simply pedantic but actually forms an important part of the discussion because there are people claiming that what will happen is  
Congress writes a bill to not accept the accord  
Bill passes  
Obama vetoes the bill  
Congress cannot override veto  
Since a negative law was vetoed, it creates a positive law meaning Congress approved the accords.

I claim the above scenario will not (and cannot) occur.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/28 "2015-07-16T16:57:11Z")

</div>

There is no “parliamentary law” with respect to Congress. The House and Senate have their own rules of proceedings that are not related to Roberts (or whatever you’re thinking of).

> [@](#):
>
> So I challenge you and sbunny8 to find ANY bill ever written that if passed means nothing whatsoever would happen.

Sec. 8079. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for integration of foreign intelligence information unless the information has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized foreign intelligence activities: Provided, That information pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as implemented through Executive Order No. 12333.

Would you like more examples of laws that did literally nothing?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mike\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mike\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_H)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/29 "2015-07-16T17:27:43Z")

</div>

> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> …
> 
> I claim there has never been a bill that as a whole state that actions would not occur\*, a so-called negative law that if vetoed would require Congress to take action. Every bill written creates a positive law in which some action would occur and if vetoed the status quo is maintained.  
> \*Leaving out bills that rescind previous laws.
> 
> My challenge to those who claim Congress can and has written negative laws to please show me one bill, any bill that if passed and vetoed would create a positive law (e.g. require Congress to fund the closing of Gitmo)  
> This is not simply pedantic but actually forms an important part of the discussion because there are people claiming that what will happen is  
> Congress writes a bill to not accept the accord  
> Bill passes  
> Obama vetoes the bill  
> Congress cannot override veto  
> Since a negative law was vetoed, it creates a positive law meaning Congress approved the accords.
> 
> I claim the above scenario will not (and cannot) occur.

You really seem confused about some things. First of all, vetoing a bill does not mean the opposite of the bill must happen, it means the requirements of the bill are not required (as they were not required before). Congress passes a bill “The sky shall not be green” . A “negative” law in your view. President vetoes it. Doesn’t mean the sky is now green. First of all, the only thing such a law could mean is the president is _prevented_ from trying to make the sky green. Vetoing such a law does not mean he is \* required \* to make the sky green, only that he is still permited to do so.

Same situation with the Iran deal. Congress passing a disapproval measure means the president is _prevented_ from implementing the Iran deal. Vetoing means he is free to implement it or not, under his executive authority, the _same as if Congress had did nothing at all_ NOT that he is \* required \* to do so. Vetoing a bill does NOT create a positive law - it creates no law whatsoever.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/30 "2015-07-16T17:47:31Z")

</div>

**Saint Cad** - after reading this whole thread again very carefully, I believe you are attributing nonsensical arguments to **sbunny8** that she has never said. Everything she has said has been precisely correct. You keep taking her statements and inferring from them that they mean something absurd. Just because you infer something from her statements doesn’t mean she’s actually implying them.

Congress can, and very frequently does, pass laws that contain provisions that have no effect at all. Very often these provisions state, in essence “The Executive Branch is prohibited from using any funds to do something that is already illegal to do.”

If a bill were comprised of only that statement, and it was passed into law, the Executive Branch is prohibited from breaking the law. If the bill were vetoed, the Executive Branch would still be prohibited from violating the underlying law.

Veto of such a bill does not allow the Executive Branch to violate the law, and nobody here has said that it does. Your posts that state that **sbunny8** or someone else is stating that, or implying it, are simply mistakes on your part.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/31 "2015-07-16T17:53:16Z")

</div>

What’s all the argument about?

If a law fails to pas or is vetoed and not overridden - then the situation as it was before is the situation.

A “no money shall be spent on…” law assumes that the congress had approved money in general beforehand, usually in the general budget, and now wants to add conditions on that money - something they can do. If the conditions are vetoed, the spending continues without those restrictions.

Some of the examples above are “We allocate $X million for these purposes, but none to be spent on the following…” This is a double-edged sword - veto this and nobody gets any money. This is similar to the threats to close down government used over the last few years. “Don’t accept spending power with our conditions - then there’s no money to spend.”

For example, the prez does not submit his travel itinerary each year for prior approval - the budget probably says $X million for the operation and maintenance on Air Force One. Congress approve this budget. Money is allocated. Congress might later pass a law - “but you cannot spend AF1 operational budget to fly to Guantanamo or back.” That restricts how previously budgeted money is spent, amends the original budget law.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/32 "2015-07-16T18:51:25Z")

</div>

> [@Mike\_H](#):
>
> You really seem confused about some things. First of all, vetoing a bill does not mean the opposite of the bill must happen, it means the requirements of the bill are not required (as they were not required before). Congress passes a bill “The sky shall not be green” . A “negative” law in your view. President vetoes it. Doesn’t mean the sky is now green. First of all, the only thing such a law could mean is the president is _prevented_ from trying to make the sky green. Vetoing such a law does not mean he is \* required \* to make the sky green, only that he is still permited to do so.

EXCEPT that’s not what I said. I’m the one who is saying a law must be to take a positive act and a veto nullifies that maintaining the status quo. I’m arguing **against** the people that claim that Congress can pass a negative law and a veto means the opposite (whatever that is occurs). I use the same logic you do that vetoing a negative law to make a positive law is nonsensical.

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> **Saint Cad** - after reading this whole thread again very carefully, I believe you are attributing nonsensical arguments to **sbunny8** that she has never said. Everything she has said has been precisely correct. You keep taking her statements and inferring from them that they mean something absurd. Just because you infer something from her statements doesn’t mean she’s actually implying them.
> 
> Congress can, and very frequently does, pass laws that contain provisions that have no effect at all. Very often these provisions state, in essence “The Executive Branch is prohibited from using any funds to do something that is already illegal to do.”
> 
> If a bill were comprised of only that statement, and it was passed into law, the Executive Branch is prohibited from breaking the law. If the bill were vetoed, the Executive Branch would still be prohibited from violating the underlying law.
> 
> Veto of such a bill does not allow the Executive Branch to violate the law, and nobody here has said that it does. Your posts that state that **sbunny8** or someone else is stating that, or implying it, are simply mistakes on your part.

Hmmmm…

[QUOTE=sbunny8]  
No, I meant more along the lines of: The President wants to spend about $20,000,000 to transfer all the prisoners out of Gitmo and shut down the prison but before he can get it done, Congress writes a bill that says something like “We will not give any money at all to shut down Gitmo”. Then the President could veto it. And then Congress could try to override the veto.  
[/QUOTE]

Seems like they are talking about a complete negative law and not a provision to a positive law. And let’s say Congress passes the Sbunny8 Law as written  
Resolved: Congress shall not apportion any money to shut down Gitmo.  
and it is vetoed, what happens?

> [@md2000](#):
>
> A “no money shall be spent on…” law assumes that the congress had approved money in general beforehand, usually in the general budget, and now wants to add conditions on that money - something they can do. If the conditions are vetoed, the spending continues without those restrictions.
> 
> Some of the examples above are “We allocate $X million for these purposes, but none to be spent on the following…” This is a double-edged sword - veto this and nobody gets any money. This is similar to the threats to close down government used over the last few years. “Don’t accept spending power with our conditions - then there’s no money to spend.”

Exactly!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/33 "2015-07-16T18:59:11Z")

</div>

> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> I’m arguing **against** the people that claim that Congress can pass a negative law and a veto means the opposite (whatever that is occurs).

Nobody is arguing that.

> [@](#):
>
> Seems like they are talking about a complete negative law and not a provision to a positive law.

They aren’t. You’re reading into their statements in an odd way and finding things that I don’t believe are there.

> [@](#):
>
> And let’s say Congress passes the Sbunny8 Law as written  
> Resolved: Congress shall not apportion any money to shut down Gitmo.  
> and it is vetoed, what happens?

That question can’t be answered without an understanding of the underlying law.

At this moment, there are multiple overlapping provisions of law already in effect that prevent Guantanamo from being closed. If that bill you suggested were enacted, nothing would change. If that bill you suggested were not enacted, nothing would change.

Let’s say there was no underlying law at all on Guantanamo closure. The President would have the authority to shut down Guantanamo. If the law were enacted, he would no longer have the authority. If the law were not enacted, he would still have the authority.

And the method by which a law is not enacted really doesn’t matter. If Congress doesn’t vote on a bill, it isn’t enacted. If a bill is vetoed and not overridden, it isn’t enacted. There’s no difference.

And to repeat one more time: your references to “parliamentary law” are nonsense. There’s no such thing. Each house of Congress writes its own rules and procedures, as the Constitution requires. And there’s no rule in either house that legislation must have an effect or else it is out of order.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/34 "2015-07-16T19:29:29Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> They aren’t. You’re reading into their statements in an odd way and finding things that I don’t believe are there.

Then they should clarify themselves. I quoted an actual statement they made and we have constantly distinguished between a negative provision (perfectly OK) and a negative law (not OK). Once again

> [@](#):
>
> Congress writes a bill that says something like “We will not give any money at all to shut down Gitmo”. Then the President could veto it. And then Congress could try to override the veto.

So how am I misinterpreting what they are saying?

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> And to repeat one more time: your references to “parliamentary law” are nonsense. There’s no such thing. Each house of Congress writes its own rules and procedures, as the Constitution requires. And there’s no rule in either house that legislation must have an effect or else it is out of order.

And are you saying that parliamentary law does not exist or are you saying Congress is not obliged to follow parliamentary law. If the former then [you are wrong](Parliamentary Law refers originally to the customs and rules for conducting business in the English Parliament; and thence to the usages of deliberative assemblies in general.). If the latter than [you are wrong](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/8osneer1/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/united-states-v-ballin/) as SCOTUS has decreed that Congress must follow parliamentary law unless the rules of order are explicit regarding the issue at hand.

You might be interested in this quote from [Hinds’ Precedents](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5/html/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5-15.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> 1. No dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.  
> Review of the conditions which resulted in the rule empowering the  
> Speaker to decline to recognize for dilatory motions.  
> Discussion of the power of the Speaker in relation to the rights of  
> the House.  
> Present form and history of section 10 of Rule XVI.  
> Section 10 of Rule XVI provides:
> 
> No dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.
> 
> This rule originated in the revision of 1890. It was not included  
> among the rules of the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses, but was  
> restored in the Fifty-fourth. In their report \2\ the committee making  
> the revision of 1890 said:
> 
> This clause is merely declaratory of parliamentary law.

Currently, this provision is in Section 1 of Rule XVI. A negative motion, i.e. one that if passed will not change the status quo is always considered dilatory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/35 "2015-07-16T20:05:44Z")

</div>

> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Then they should clarify themselves.

I think they’ve been quite clear.

> [@](#):
>
> So how am I misinterpreting what they are saying?

What?

> [@](#):
>
> And are you saying that parliamentary law does not exist or are you saying Congress is not obliged to follow parliamentary law.

There is no “parliamentary law” as some unified body of rules, like the U.S. Code, that dictates how Congress does its work. Each house writes its own rules. If you are using the words “parliamentary law” to refer to the rules of each body, independent of one another, then perhaps you’re just using terms oddly.

> [@](#):
>
> If the former then [you are wrong](Parliamentary Law refers originally to the customs and rules for conducting business in the English Parliament; and thence to the usages of deliberative assemblies in general.). If the latter than [you are wrong](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/8osneer1/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/united-states-v-ballin/) as SCOTUS has decreed that Congress must follow parliamentary law unless the rules of order are explicit regarding the issue at hand.

Your first link is broken. As for your second, I’ll be happy to read the part you want to call my attention to, but I’m not inclined to wade through several pages worth of discussion of woolen cloths to figure out what you’re trying to highlight.

> [@](#):
>
> You might be interested in this quote from [Hinds’ Precedents](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5/html/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5-15.htm)
> 
> Currently, this provision is in Section 1 of Rule XVI. A negative motion, i.e. one that if passed will not change the status quo is always considered dilatory.

Can you point out where Hind’s Precedents talks about “negative motions?” It clearly talks about repeated motions to adjourn, over and over again, as being dilatory and out of order. I see nothing about “status quo” or “negative motions.”

> **[GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5-15.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5-15.pdf)**
>
> 244.84 KB

What I think you have done is assumed that “dilatory motions” include this idea of “negative motions” without establishing that “negative motions” even exist as a concept in Congress.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/36 "2015-07-16T21:53:14Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> There is no “parliamentary law” as some unified body of rules, like the U.S. Code, that dictates how Congress does its work. Each house writes its own rules. If you are using the words “parliamentary law” to refer to the rules of each body, independent of one another, then perhaps you’re just using terms oddly.
> 
> Your first link is broken. As for your second, I’ll be happy to read the part you want to call my attention to, but I’m not inclined to wade through several pages worth of discussion of woolen cloths to figure out what you’re trying to highlight.

[Try this link](http://www.bartleby.com/176/100.html)

Maybe you should read post #26 where I posted two quotes from the _Ballin_ decision that talk about parliamentary law and under what conditions Congress is obliged to follow it. The question before SCOTUS was if a law is passed if it is not the

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Can you point out where Hind’s Precedents talks about “negative motions?” It clearly talks about repeated motions to adjourn, over and over again, as being dilatory and out of order. I see nothing about “status quo” or “negative motions.”
> 
> [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5-15.pdf](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V5-15.pdf)
> 
> What I think you have done is assumed that “dilatory motions” include this idea of “negative motions” without establishing that “negative motions” even exist as a concept in Congress.

The section I quoted was your counter to the idea that parliamentary law doesn’t exist.  
Look if you want to believe a motion can be phrased in the negative go ahead because if I quote _Roberts’ Rules_ or _Mason’s Manual_ to you as a cite, you’ll simply say “Yeah but Congress makes its own rules.” I’ve already shown where SCOTUS says Congress has to follow parliamentary law when not overruled by other Rules of Order but you refuse to read it. You tell me sbunny8 doesn’t really talk about negative laws even though I quoted them giving them an example of a negative law that they claim can be passed.

So you win. You are so much knowledgable about parliamentary procedure than I am. Congress could absolutely pass the law “We will not pay to close Gitmo.” and it can be vetoed which I assume means Congress has to pay to close Gitmo because it would be ridiculous to pass a law that has no effect and have a veto that has no effect wouldn’t it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/37 "2015-07-16T23:24:56Z")

</div>

I can show you probably hundreds of provisions of law that have no effect if you wanted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/38 "2015-07-17T00:31:58Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> I can show you probably hundreds of provisions of law that have no effect if you wanted.

Once again, we are not talking _provisions_ of laws but full and complete laws that have no effect in their entirety. So show me even one \*complete \*law that do not change the status quo.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211/39 "2015-07-17T01:28:04Z")

</div>

> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Once again, we are not talking _provisions_ of laws but full and complete laws that have no effect in their entirety. So show me even one \*complete \*law that do not change the status quo.

So you’re saying “parliamentary law” considers “negative motion” bills to be dilatory and out of order, but not “negative motion” provisions of bills or “negative motion” amendments to bills are not dilatory and are therefore in order?

Where can I read about these rules?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-veto/725211.md?page=1)