Article I, § 7 no longer valid?

A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
On Feb. 8, 2006, President Bush apparently signed into law the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. On Mar. 15, 2006, CA Representative Henry Waxman (D) sent the following letter to the Whitehouse Cheif of Staff, Andrew Card:
Dear Mr. Card:

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Click to expand...
The letter in its entirety may be read at the indicated link above.

A problem is that I have found this reported only on RawStory.com (liberal MA newsite), YubaNet.com (Community ISP Website), PrisonPlanet.com (Alex Jones Conspriacy site) and FreeMarketNews.com (libertarian site). So is this for real?

According to Thomas, the Bill in question is S. 1932.ENR - Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate

The other slightly different versions are:
S.1932.EAS - Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate
S.1932.ES - Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate

From Thomas, the final actions of this Bill:

1/31/2006 4:28pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 653 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S. 1932. Upon adoption of the resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
2/1/2006 5:07pm:
House agreed to Senate amendment to House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653. (consideration: CR H68-114; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H69-114)
2/1/2006:
Cleared for White House.
2/6/2006:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
2/7/2006:
Presented to President.
2/8/2006:
Signed by President.
2/8/2006:
Became Public Law No: 109-171.

Looks and "sounds" correct and proper... So why is Waxman raising the spector of a Constitutional Crisis?

A little further digging yielded this from the Democrats Government Reform Committee site:

President May Have Known of Constitutional Defect Before Bill Signing

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 -- Rep. Waxman asks the White House to respond to information that the Speaker of the House called President Bush to alert him that the version of the Reconciliation Act he was about to sign differed from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Waxman writes: "If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution."

Letter to the White House (pdf)
Experts Agree: Budget Bill Not Valid Law (pdf)
Click to expand...
The first link in the above quote is the letter Waxman sent to the Whitehouse Chief of Staff and appears to be valid.

The second link is a letter sent by Waxman to the Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi. In this letter, Waxman apparently went to several Constitutional Scholars for their opinions on the legality of the legislation.

Reading the "Experts" pdf above, seems to indicate that there is indeed a problem.
------

All of the above was written on Wed. the 15th of March. I have hesitated to post this, as I could find nothing to really verify. Since then some new information has come to light. The following two links are a bit much to simply paste into this post.

From FindLaw: The Broken Branch: An Unusual Lawsuit Takes Congress to Task For Shoddy and Partisan Lawmaking, In Which A Bill Is Unconstitutionally Being Treated as Law
By John W. Dean
Friday, Mar. 10, 2006

However, further research has located a precedent for this kind of thing: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892). In this, it was alleged that the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 signed by President Benjamin Harrison was different from the version actually passed by Congress. The Court decided that the presiding officers' certification was conclusive; any attempt to rely on other sources was rejected as invalid.

I would hope that the Court would overturn this vile precedent, because if all it takes is for the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate to "certify" a bill, then we have absolutely no need for a Congress. Article I, § 7 either means what it says or we have no Constitution binding the government.

Further reading from the Washington Post:
Spending Measure Not a Law, Suit Says
Senate, House Versions Are Different

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 22, 2006; Page A04

This is one we should pay attention to, regardless of our political views.
 
No matter what kind of crap they sign into law, the Constitution still supercedes it and is still the supreme law of the land:

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
-Article VI, Clause 2, United States Constitution

"...and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof..." = if a given law does not pass Constitutional muster, it is null and void.
 
steelheart, do you remember the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?

Now what were you saying about the constitutionality of a law?
 
No matter what kind of crap they sign into law, the Constitution still supercedes it and is still the supreme law of the land:
Click to expand...


All it takes is a look at the tattered state of the 4th amendment to see that a law being unconstitutional isn't much protection against its being enforced.
 
Now what were you saying about the constitutionality of a law?
Click to expand...
You got me, Antipitas!!:D

I guess if the politicians pass a law, and everybody pretends it's constitutional... Presto-chango, it is constitutional!!:barf: :barf:
 
Since congresscritters hardly ever read the laws they pass, even if they are constitutional, congresscritters don't know they're constitutional. IMO, that's a violation of their oath. How ironic that they complain about other people violating the constitution when the violation amounts to an extra expenditure of $2 billion. That's nothing, governmentally speaking.

What ever happened to Ron Paul's bill to force congress to read bills aloud? Is it still at the bottom of the ocean?
 
What ever happened to Ron Paul's bill to force congress to read bills aloud? Is it still at the bottom of the ocean?
Click to expand...

That would realy liven up C-SPAN:rolleyes: . But seriously, I heard that Isack Hayes is looking for a new voice acting part...:D
 
Another bill

I say make Ron Paul Gov of Texas or President. Then just clean house on election day. Vote for no one that doesn't 'live" the Constitution, not just talk about it while trying to do away it. Where is McCarthy when you need him?
 
tyme wrote:

Since congresscritters hardly ever read the laws they pass, even if they are constitutional, congresscritters don't know they're constitutional. IMO, that's a violation of their oath. How ironic that they complain about other people violating the constitution when the violation amounts to an extra expenditure of $2 billion. That's nothing, governmentally speaking.

What ever happened to Ron Paul's bill to force congress to read bills aloud? Is it still at the bottom of the ocean?

-----------------------
Tyme might well be correct. Next question is as follows. What can the people of this country do about just such a situation?
 
O.K. . .there's a couple things here.

First, I've worked with state legislators and studied the federal variety of the species. They both have the cumulative intellect of a bucket of dead bait.

Second, Henry Waxman looks like some kind of clone grown off a wart excised from the gluteous maximus of a fruit bat. And that's his attractive side. He is so liberal he'd make Lenin puke.

Third, I agree with those who have commented that Congress doesn't understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, much less pay any attention to the meaning of the documents.

My personal feeling is that both Bush and Congress are in it for the glory and neither has a firm grasp of American constitutional principles, much less any regard for such things. George Mason and Thomas Jefferson are probably spinning in their graves.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top