I am aware of that. 2/3 majorities are hard to come by, though.

>It doesn't mean that much really -- if congress wanted to pass it regardless, they could. Veto power can be over-ruled. If he vetoes a bill, the bill goes back to the house and the senate and the veto can be over-ruled by two-thirds vote in each. So, if they really wanted to, they could still pass the bill but the bill would require a lot of support by both houses in order to pass by two-thirds vote the 2nd time around.
>
>
>>True. And Obama is reminding him that it is up to the President to veto unfit bills.
>>
>>>I think where he is coming from, is that it isn't up to the President to decide what gets included in a bill and what doesn't. That is the job of Congress.
>>>
>>>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/27/reid-to-obama-back-off-on-earmarks/?hpt=T2
>>>>
>>>>Freshly reelected to another six-year term, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t holding back fire when it comes to his disagreements with President Obama over a ban on earmarks.
>>>>
>>>>“This is an applause line,” the Nevada Democrat told NBC News Wednesday regarding Obama’s pledge not to sign a bill with earmark spending in it. “It’s an effort by the White House to get more power. They have enough power as it is.”
>>>>
>>>>Clearly, Harry Reid knows a lot more about politics than I do. But this definitely puzzles me. Obama is clearly tacking to the center and Reid digs in his heels over something as inflammatory as earmarks? Everyone from your dog on up knows earmarks are not right. If you've got something you think the public's money should be spent on, submit a bill and get it passed. That is the role of the legislature. But don't try to sneak it through in the inside pocket of some other bill.
>>>>
>>>>They say Harry Reid is a tough guy, much tougher than he looks. He better be. This strikes me as a foolish line to draw in the sand.