One of gaming's darkest moments might come true

[Kantor]

dtewi said:

Kantor said:

The first case is relatively simple.

In the second, on reading up, this just means he gets to send it back to Congress with objections? So, if they decide to vote for it again, he can't do anything?

Pocket Veto confuses me a little. Does it work the same as a veto, only without it actually being a veto? What is the advantage of doing this, rather than just vetoing a bill?

Another question. If Arnie wins this case (which he probably won't), can he sign it into California law, or does it have to be approved by the federal government, when it will then be enacted in every state?

A veto is denied by the president. It goes back to Congress. If the House and the Senate pass it with 2/3 majority, it's a law, and the president can't do anything about it.

Pocket veto is entirely different. If the president doesn't sign it after ten days (excluding the Sabbath) it becomes a law.... I think. I'm unsure of what it's called.

I have no clue to the last part. I don't know if this should even be a Federal law or a State law.

The gist I'm getting from the Pocket veto Wikipedia article is that if Congress is adjourned before ten days (excluding Sunday) pass (after which time the bill would become a law), the bill is effectively vetoed and will not become law. Since it is vetoed while Congress is unable to override the veto, the bill will never become law.

And apparently, this was already a California law from 2005-2007, when the Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional. So would Schwarzenegger winning this case mean:

1) California could re-implement the law, OR

2) Any state could implement the law, OR

3) All states would be forced to implement the law?

I assume that in the second or third case, it would have to go through Congress and Obama. But it might just be the first, because Arnie is trying to appeal an appeal, effectively.

So, if this is just for Calfornia, is it that big a deal?