Legislation Returned-What does it mean?

T

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
Fabio:

I'm a bit confused over the occasion of Leonel "returning" the Legislation of the "Artificial Island", the Police Equipment, and others to the Legislature.
Does this take the place of a 'VETO"? Does this action nulify the legislation in a manner that it is to be reconsidered by those bodies?
Just what is the purpose in Leonel's doing this?
I would like to understand the principles involved since it is vastly different from what I am accustomed to seeing.

Thanks.

Texas Bill
 
T

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
To Everyone:

I received the following information from a reliable source regarding the Legislation that was "Returned toSender" by Leonel.
I will paraphrase the message so as not to reveal the name of the source.
"The Project was submitted by the Executive and approved by Congress. It is now a lawful contract. The Executive cannot backtrack on the contract and only return it to Congress with a recommendation for cancellation. However, one of the clauses specifies that the state is liable for an incredible amount if the contract is recinded."
The source goes on to say that "he, she, it" is surprised that the journalists didn't pick up on this provision and that "someone" is making a Big Haul, either way.
Wonder who that could be??

Just thought I'd post the latest information available to me on this "New squandering of Public Funds".

Texas Bill
 
Last edited:
Hillbilly

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
Bill: As I read in the news on this issue, it seems that it was emphasized that the State would have NO stake in this and that it was to be a completely private enterprise with no public funding of any sort.

If this has changed, then this is a bigger bamboozle than the Teapot Dome Oil of the 20s....

I would not put it past these people, however.

HB :ermm:
 
T

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
Luis:

I think what my source was referring to was the clause that states that should the contract NOT be ratified, the "commissions", etc. would still be payable. Since those amount to considerable it would still cost the Government a big piece of change.
Additionally, there were ancilliary costs associated with the contract that must be born by the Government. Lord only knows what those amount to and I seriously doubt if we'll ever find out.

Texas Bill
 
E

elchino

New member
Jul 7, 2006
98
0
0
Playing politics and milking the public funds.

:chinese: Lady and Gentlemen:

Its obvious that the executive branch is playing politics and is not willing to correct the conducive of corruption, controversial bills, that were supposed to be "vetoes", instead the executive branch returned them back to congress without signing them into law, such as the artificial island, the US$132-million loan for the police, the creation of Matias Ramon Mella province and several new municipalities. The bill approving a EUR106 million commercial bank loan for the Santo Domingo metro was not discarded. The President also returned the bill reforming the Penal Code, with legal advisor Cesar Pina Toribio explaining the President felt it should be subject to a debate with broad participation. The bills were sent back to Congress yesterday morning with messages explaining why each had been rejected.:chinese:

Rejected instead of vetoes is only an indication that the executive branch is going to be pushing for these bills to pass through congress and get approved regardless of how controversial, unpopular and not benefial they are to the Dominican people.:chinese:

Its obvious that, unless these executive Branch officials are morons, which I doubt very much they are, never really over looked the sending of these bills to congress in the first place. This is a systematic process their are using to further defraud the country's public funds of millions of dollars and euros.:chinese:

Can somebody explain, if the president is not part of these scheme and supportive of these bills, why he doesn't simply kill them with his "VETO" executive power?:chinese:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
F

Fabio J. Guzman

DR1 Expert
Jan 1, 2002
2,359
252
83
www.drlawyer.com
The Executive can veto a law, not a resolution approving a government contract which went from the Executive to Congress for approval in the first place! Hence, the "creative" solution of "returning" the contracts to Congress.

I haven?t found any reference to this new legal concept of ?Returning (?Devoluci?n?) in the Dominican Constitution but I must confess I?m not an expert in such arcane matters.
 
T

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
Fabio J. Guzman said:
The Executive can veto a law, not a resolution approving a government contract which went from the Executive to Congress for approval in the first place! Hence, the "creative" solution of "returning" the contracts to Congress.

I haven?t found any reference to this new legal concept of ?Returning (?Devoluci?n?) in the Dominican Constitution but I must confess I?m not an expert in such arcane matters.
Click to expand...


Fabio:

It would appear that Leonel intends for the "contracts" to be placed in a state of limbo, thereby essentially "nullifying them; contrary to the implications of ElChino's assertions. But then, if you have read his posts, you will understand where he is coming from. He is, after all, trying to start up a new Political Party. Gotta get his share of the Government Handouts to Political Parties.

Sorta reminds me of Herr Goebels propaganda methods before and during WWII. Tell a thing often enough and eventually it will become a fact and the truth.

Thank you for answering my original question about this obvious Political move on Leonel's part.

Texas Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom