Talk:Joint resolution

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Uh, maybe it should say what it is. This article doesn't make that particularly clear; I don't see how this differs from a normal Bill.

=============

Wait a minute -- doesn't a bill become law after ten days even if the President fails to sign it, as long as Congress doesn't adjourn within those ten days? (If it does adjourn during that time and the bill is unsigned, then a "pocket veto" is considered to have been passed.) The text as it stands fails to note that if the bill (or resolution) remains unsigned it can still become law after the passage of ten days (as long as Congress has not within that period adjourned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.17.144 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add to this page, rather than come into this section. In any case, shouldn't it say that although it was used in the past with Texas and Hawaii that a joint resolution really has no jurisdiction outside of its borders? I mean if that's the case, then we could say that they can do that with Iraq. Mamoahina (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their should be changed to his as their creates confusion

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, . . . ." (Constitution of the USA). Their in the article creates confusion as referring to the two houses (plural) instead of to the president (singular). Consistent with historical usage and that of the Constitution, despite PCism, the pronoun should be his, his being the generic singular pronoun and also the pronoun that the Constitution uses. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I agree completely. As I read the sentence, I stumbled at "…their…". I couldn't make sense of it. I tried to find a way to assign "approval" to the Houses of Congress and failed. Finally I reached the conclusion that this was a grammatical error. Grossdm (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]