I'm annoyed

[kandrathe]

Perhaps, guess we have different point of view (until rogue clarifies at least). I don't particularly feel that the first part is necessary if you're being brief, since laws become so the second the president signs it.

On a sidenote, and tacking a bit on these ammends:
Do you think it'd fall only on the prez for vetoing it? After all, if he is the one who raises a big enough stink over the ammends that are being tacked to the original bill, wouldn't it be possible for the fallout to drop over the House and/or Senate?
[right][snapback]99334[/snapback][/right]

To me, a veto indicates a failure of the party in power to get their ducks in a row. Certainly now since the ruling party has a majority in the House and the Senate, the legislation put before the President should have all the nits removed by his friends in Congress. Imagine the headlines though, "President vetos reauthorization of Violence Against Women Prevention Act".

No. I would rather two things. Smarter people write the language to be clear, and that bills are made smaller. That way even our literacy challenged public servants can read and comprehend them.

Or is it too late for any president to do so?

Once it is crafted and passed by Congress, and signed by the President it is the law until the same process amends or revokes the law, or the law or parts of it are struck down by the Judiciary.