an interesting question

Did the president bush "pocket veto" the Torture and Tyranny act? The bill was passed by congress on Sep 29, and sent to the president. The Constitution says in Article 1, Section 7: "...If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

The tenth day was Oct 10.

What got me thinking about this was reading the transcript at Crooks & Liars
Olbermann: “Why does habeas corpus hate America”
By: Jamie Holly on Tuesday, October 10th, 2006 at 6:04 PM - PDT
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/10/olbermann-why-does-habeas-corpus-hate-america/

[...]
"Because time was of the essence–and to ensure that the 9/11 families would wait no longer–as soon as he got the bill, President Bush whipped out his pen and immediately signed a statement saying he looks forward to signing the actual law…eventually.

He hasn't signed it yet, almost two weeks later..."

From The Pocket Veto: Its Current Status, Mar. 30, 2001.
[http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf]

In 1929, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the pocket veto, concluding that the adjournment prevented the President from returning the bill. The crucial issue was not whether an adjournment was final or interim but whether it “prevented” the bill’s return. The Court held that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of legislative work. It was not sufficient, said the Court, for the veto message to be delivered to a legislative agent and held until the chamber resumed its sittings.

and later,

On August 29, 1984, he [reagan] announced that he had full constitutional authority to pocket veto bills during any congressional adjournment...

Both houses of congress voted to adjourn on Sep 30.
http://www.senate.gov
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 2:27 a.m. on Saturday, September 30.

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006
1:05 A.M. The House adjourned pursuant to H. Con. Res. 483. The next meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on November 9, 2006.
On motion to adjourn Agreed to by voice vote.

So.

Of course,we all know that the bush is going to say it all means what he says it means, but will Congress and the courts have other ideas on the subject. As Mr Olberman said, he did sign a statement saying he intended to sign the bill. However, the Constitution does say the bill itself has to be signed.

Of course, if the republicans hold control of the congress, the whole question becomes moot.

But what it does come down to is either it is the law today, or it has been vetoed.


Pocket Veto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden.

From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: "...If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by Congress would "prevent" the President from returning a vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of work. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a short enough time that the Senate could still act with "reasonable promptitude" on the veto. However, a five-month adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases

Reference
Fisher, Louis: The Pocket Veto: Its Current Status, Mar. 30, 2001.