Will a war power bill requiring the president to consult lawmakers before going to war be enacted?

You have a suaspend date of Sun 8th Mar 2009 6:59pm CDT. Is this also the settlement date for a bill to make it through Congress and be signed into law?

And if this doesn't happen, will this market settle as "No" ?

could not decide what date to use...any suggestions?

It would have to be passed by both houses before the end of this session of Congress, which I believe is January 3, 2009. Then be signed by the President, who leaves office at noon, January 20th. Otherwise, (assuming that this idea is indeed introduced, becomes a bill and makes it out of committee)...it dies.

will leave date and let market settle as No

coolkraft. OK, so your market is: Will a war power bill requiring the president to consult lawmakers before going to war be enacted before Sun 8th Mar 2009 6:59pm CDT?

Hi,

As per Coolkraft's comment the market suspend date is also the market settlement date.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

just more democratic bellyaching becuase they didn't understand what war is. Approved the invasion but not the counterinsurgency, HA!

this could get tricky. presidents can't declare war...congress has to do that. bush got congress's aproval to go into iraq. ask obama he'll tell ya. if they pass it bush will never sign it. it they over ride his veto, then it will get decided by the judical branch. goodluck betters.

dieseldog...How on earth would the judicial branch enter the equation? The legislature passes laws. If Bush vetos, congress can over-ride the veto. There is another possible scenario, however...The new president will be in office, also a new congress will be in session...all before the settlement date. But....can it happen in roughly 60 days? I don't think so. Hence, my wager. Remember, as of yet, there is no bill.

@erik..same way supreme court gave prisoner's at gitmo hapeas corpus. if congress passes a law and prez veto's..etc they got to court. another example..campain finace. both prez and congress ok'd it, but the courts struck down part of it.

Dieseldog...the "Gitmo" thang you refer to was a result of a suit filed by the detainees and apealed to the Supremes. It had absolutely nothing to do with legislation. I refer you to http://www.usa.gov/
US Government 101

http://www.slco.lib.ut.us/law-statute-bill-what.htm

@erik..the congress passed a bill-law after a prior gitmo case. they thought it dealt with the concerns. then this latest gitmo case was ruled on, and they supreme court evidently didn't think the law just passed was legit. not gonna debate the supreme court..you ask how judical branch could get invovled. they was invovled alot during the clinton years. just cause congress pass's a law don't make it rock solid.

dieseldog> My original post was concerning legislation. This market, in particular. The executive branch cannot raise taxes. That would be legislation...which is done by the legislative branch. If, indeed, the legislative branch of the federal government passes a piece of legislation it then goes to the executive branch to be signed into law or vetoed. If signed, it becomes law. If vetoed, it is sent back to whence it came. The legislation is then either allowed to die or given another vote in an attempt to over-ride the executive branch's veto. If the veto is over-ridden, the legislation becomes law. If a party affected by said legislation feels that the legislation is unconstitutional (illegal), said party can appeal thru the judicial branch. At times, legislation is reversed...ie: the D.C. gun ban.
Very briefly, that is how the "balance of powers" works. Nowhere is the judiciary involved in formulating, instituting or in any way effecting, pending legislation. Any hint of such would be unconstituonal and would, perhaps cause our Founding Fathers to have a collective spin in their graves.