President signed into law a bill that never passed the House?!

[crispini]

Spending Measure Not a Law, Suit Says
Senate, House Versions Are Different
Wednesday, March 22, 2006; Page A04
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post

WASHINGTON – For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang “I’m Just a Bill,” how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.

“He signed ya, Bill – now you’re a law,” shouts the cartoon lawmaker on “Schoolhouse Rock” as Bill acknowledges the cheers.

But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that never passed the House. Bill – in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans – became a law because it was “certified” by the leaders of the House and Senate.

After stewing for weeks, Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued Tuesday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate’s version.

The issue is bizarre, with even constitutional scholars saying they could not think of any precedent for the journey the budget bill took to becoming a law. Opponents point to elementary school civics lessons to make their case, while Republicans are evoking an obscure Supreme Court ruling from the 1890s to suggest a bill does not have to pass both chambers of Congress to become law.
more....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101763.html

I thought I was paying attention here! Did I miss this? It's a news article from last week.

The nut-fuckery of this administration, the sheer hubris, the astounding assholery -- it's a new low every. flippin. day! :mad:

[WI_DEM]

1. Sounds like something this fascist would do.

[Dhalgren]

16. Not just "this" fascist, but any fascist.

The whole idea of legal form is a ruse and sham with fascists. They neither believe in the rule of law nor in the constraints of "legality". Fascists function purely on power, if they have to "go through the motions" so as to "appear" within the law, so be it. But everyone must know that it is purely proforma...

[AuntiBush]

43. Purely Performance

and becoming more blatant about it, daily!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. You can never underestimate the lows to which this shitheel

will stoop.

[fooj]

3. Censure and impeach the treasonous, rat bastards!

Peace.

[melissinha]

4. OMG! K&R

This is clearly a violation.... with all the spouting of rules and the like, thsi is no mistake.

:kick:

[carolinalady]

5. My two new favorite phrases:

Nut-fuckery
astounding assholery

Crispini definitely wins "The Word(s)" award today!
;-)

[understandinglife]

6. You may find the following Ornstein article of interest:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=774699&mesg_id=774699


If You're pro-Bush, You're anti-America -- testing a new meme

[LibertyLover]

7. Enabling legislation

Sounds like they will be "certifying" enabling legislation any day now. Won't that be fun?

[AuntiBush]

44. The Only Thing Certifiable

is their arrogance.

[wtbymark]

8. impeach - then prosecute for treason

he did it intentionally

[lyonn]

9. What are our Democrats in Congress doing about it?

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. What do you expect them to do about it?

See #11.

Beyond putting a letter in writing, unless Harry wants to shut down the Senate and duke it out in closed session until there is some satisfaction, what CAN they do about it?

[OzarkDem]

15. They've been raising hell

I got quite a few emails about it in the last week or so, from Pelosi's office, I think.

[lyonn]

19. Thanks for reminding me that the Dems have no voice

But it would be so much fun if the Dems would one day actually walk out of the House and Senate. That is about all we have left to try. Harry did shut it down not long ago and that was exciting, and then what happened? Did we ever get the info we were demanding?

[CanonRay]

10. We're going to have to re-write the Civic text books before * is done

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. Is this the same one that Waxman wrote a letter about?

IIRC, there was a post about Waxman bringing this to Pres. attention through a letter. Also, IIRC, Pres. was notified PRIOR to signing (at least Card was notified, so it could be presumed he would tell Pres), and Pres STILL signed it.

That never made the level of newsticker when it happened. Good for Public Citizen. Someone has to pay attention to bring these criminal activities to be accounted for!

[leeroysphitz]

12. Chipping away...

If this is allowed to stand, and I'm sure it will be, then we will have a clear PRECEDENT for the executive branch making laws via an extra-constitutional process. I.E. without worrying about CONGRESSIONAL approval. Imperial presidency indeed!

If this doesn't SCARE you then you are not paying attention.

[FormerRepublican]

18. Could Card's resignation today be a way of distancing Bush from this?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Lord knows Bush denies (lies) about every law he's ever broken.

[Greylyn58]

13. I totally agree with you crispini

Each day that I hear or read of some new (to use your words--nut-fuckery) committed by this mis-administration, I wonder if I'm just gonna explode into a flaming ball because I can't take anymore.

How much more Oh Lord can we be expected to handle before America screams in one loud voice: "ENOUGH!"

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[carolinalady]

17. I just e-mailed your post to Countdown. n/t

[Richard Steele]

20. You WERE paying attention, but there are only so many hours in the day.

Bushcabal™ has utterly ignored the basic rules and laws of the USA
in so many ways, you cannot be blamed for missing a single incident.

He signed a law which wasn't a law?
Easy to miss that,
when he regularly issues statements to the effect
that he is free to ignore what ANY new law actually says,
but will instead act as though it says whatever is most convenient for him.

And Congress and all Law Enforcement just play along,
enforcing the giggling MurderMonkey's every dictatorial whim
as though it were LAW...

Yeah, in times like these, I can forgive you
for missing a minor detail here or there.

[texpatriot2004]

21. It's a "WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION"

so are we a land of laws, or not? They had better UNDO this! Or make Chumpy a dictator.

[Dr. Jones]

22. My jaw has been dropping so much lately,

I may need facial reconstructive surgery.

This sucks. It CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

Impeach...NOW!

[mvd]

23. And I'm sure they'll continue to hit new lows

:argh:

[Fleshdancer]

24. This non-law is very anti-child by the way.....

But we already knew they were pro-fetus, not pro-life so this isn't a surprise:

http://www.afscme.org/action/l051108.htm

$4.9 billion cut in child support enforcement, a cut of nearly 40% in 2010: Reducing the federal matching rate for child support enforcement activities in the states is an example of penny wise and pound foolish policy. The CBO estimates that the reconciliation bill's reduction in the federal commitment to child support programs will result in custodial parents receiving $8 billion less child support over five years and $24 billion less over 10 years. Many custodial parents are single mothers already struggling to provide basic necessities for themselves and their children. They will be forced to seek help from government programs if their child support goes uncollected.

$577 million in "savings" by denying federal assistance to thousands of abused or neglected children in foster care: The budget bill would reduce federal foster care assistance for grandparents or other family members who have stepped in to provide care for their relatives' children. It also limits states' eligibility for federal funding by creating stricter licensing requirements. This is an example of enormous cost shifts to the states. States would have to choose between shortchanging other important state initiatives or cutting foster care services and increasing caseworkers' workloads, which are already dangerously high in many states and counties.

$14.3 billion in cuts to student aid: Every year, access to higher education becomes a more critical factor in achieving a lifetime of economic success. This budget bill reduces support for low-income college students by increasing the interest rates and fees they must pay, and reducing subsidies to lenders. These changes are estimated to cost the typical student up to $5,800 in additional interest and fees over the life of their loans. It is simply wrong to force our nation's students and their families to shoulder the burden of our country's debt.

___________

Please click on the link to read the entire letter.

[unblock]

25. here's my constitutional interpretation of the issue:

1) both houses of congress passed bill version #1 -- no problem so far
2) shrub signed version #2 -- legally 100% irrelevant. he can sign his used toilet paper, it don't mean a damn thing.
3) house leaders certify version #2 -- again, legally 100% irrelevant. version #2 didn't pass both houses, so it's not a law.
4) 10 days passes after (1). -- VERSION #1 BECOMES LAW WITHOUT SHRUB'S SIGNATURE this is in the constitution (unless it's within 10 days of the end of congress's session, in which case it it "pocket vetoed".)

so far, no one's actually done anything illegal, they've merely done legally irrelevant things. however, soon to come is:

5) shrub and others act under terms of version #2, e.g., expending funds to halliburton as per version #2 but not permitted by version #1. -- THIS IS CRIMINAL. this is embezzlement, taking money from the government that doesn't belong to you or your cronies.

[glitch]

37. VERY nice summation. K & R for this post. nt

[Norquist Nemesis]

53. Ta-Dah!!! Goodbye Andy, Hellloooo Josh!!!

Andy screwed up on this one. He even received a call before the signing...at least the office he was in charge of and had 'put controls in place' did. Too many mistakes and missteps for Andy.

Newly named COS Josh's experience as Director of OMB should fit in quite nicely for being able to keep those checks going to Halliburton!

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. Thank you for the analysis.

[Occulus]

56. But would they get called on it?

Ah, there's the rub.

Will anyone stand up and say, "Um, WE DIDN'T PASS THIS..."?

That's the, er, "problematic" part.

[melissinha]

26. Emailing to Michael Moore and Crooksandliars, Randi, Rachel

:kick:

[jasmeel]

27. They probably do this so they can claim precedent. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

28. If you missed it, we all did.

k & r

[melissinha]

29. lets get the facts straight

The Senate originated the bill, passed it on to House with stlightly generous pro-patient extra 24 months of government subsidied medical equipment, it barely passes with the more generous amounts in the House by 214 to 216.... So the Senate finds the error, passes the bill at the original 12 month lease restriction amount and passes their erroneous version to the President to sign the bill. They later get GOP House leaders to change version to match the Senate version out of fear that the bill would then be rejected....

[underpants]

30. So Congress and the Constitution are now OFFICIALLY irrelevant

Okay just wanted to make sure I was getting this right.

Yeah I think we all missed this.

[Initech]

31. So what does this administration have to do to...

prove that they just dont give a shit? I mean how fucking stupid are the people that they cant see that Dumbya thinks he's above the law? :mad:

[melissinha]

32. kick!

poeple need to read this.....

[rman]

33. feels like 1933

jan. 30

Not that i've been there, but still.
I've seen it in the docu "Hitler, the rise of evil".

After all, this thing W pulls is "unprecedented".
Now that he has done this, there is precedence.
Which other laws is W going to enact in this way?

[file83]

34. It's getting hard to keep track of all the ILLEGAL SHIT Bush does...

Thanks for the reminder...

[lonestarnot]

35. OMG the "nutfuckery" of this administration!

:rofl:

[progressoid]

36. I'm sorry but....WHAT THE FUCK???.

[renate]

38. I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers didn't plan for this

The whole point of this country's creation was to escape a monarchy and taxation without representation, after all, and if this doesn't do away with our representation I can't imagine what else would qualify.

There must be something somewhere in the Constitution that prevents this. (I'm trusting a bunch of guys from more than 200 years ago to fix our problems... boy am I naive.)

[Horse with no Name]

39. I think I coined the perfect analogy today

"Keeping up with this cabal is like putting 10 toddlers with forks in a room full of electrical outlets.
It is very difficult to keep your eye on every outlet at once."

[happydreams]

40. I guess 9/11 did change everything

When is Bush going to declare Congress a threat to national security??
:mad:

[smirkymonkey]

41. Kicked and recommended.

:kick:

[AuntiBush]

42. They Must Not Have Ever Taken History 101

or paid it any attention. Its the first thing I learned in History 101 (Bill of Rights, the Constitution, how laws and bills are performed). I'll never forget that first college class. Apparently they never cared for it, and figured they'd change the rules as they went along.

Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and others are so seriously tired of rolling-over in their poor ole' graves with these "assholery morons!"

[electron_blue]

45. Wow!

Just wow! Yeah, if this stands, Bush can do anything he wants.

(hint: he already can)

[WillyT]

46. Just When Ya Thought It Couldn't GET Any More Illegal...

:wtf:

K & R !!!

:kick:

[Notoverit]

47. Ah, but did he make a signing declaration? (that it doesn't apply to him?)

Unless he does, it ain't official, I say!

[Usrename]

48. Nice phrase, well done.

"The nut-fuckery of this administration, the sheer hubris, the astounding assholery --"

And that's only talking about the way they treat us, their own countrymen. It's much worse for everyone else in the world.

[Time for change]

49. One more long step on the short road to dictatorship

[Disturbed]

50. "the short road to dictatorship"

It seems that we are near the edge of that Fascist cliff.

Illegal Invasion of a Soveriegn Nation.

Negation of the Geneva Convention

Illegal spying.

Detention without habeous corpus.

Illegal signing of a Spending Bill

[Time for change]

52. And don't forget

Not only illegal spying, but the pResident saying that the law doesn't matter because, when national security is at stake, it is his right and responsibility to make the decisions, regardless of what the law says.

[tritsofme]

51. So far this is much ado about nothing.

unblock in post #25 spelled it out better than anyone.

[Canuckistanian]

55. kpete posted about this on Mar. 15th

"Did Pres KNOWINGLY Violate Constitution on BUDGET?-Rep Waxman Letter to WH"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=667578

Raw Story link:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_writes_White_House_Did_President_0315.html

[donkeyotay]

57. GOPers would rather shred the Constitution than admit to "nut-fuckery

and astounding assholery" this close to a selection.

from the op link:

Republicans are evoking an obscure Supreme Court ruling from the 1890s to suggest a bill does not actually have to pass both chambers of Congress to become law.. . .

For their part, congressional leaders and administration officials point to an 1892 Supreme Court decision, Field v. Clark , to argue that as long as the speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate certify a bill passed, it is passed.. . .

The issue would be solved if the House voted again, this time on the version that passed the Senate. But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill, containing cuts in many popular programs, and it would be that much closer to the November election.

[huskerlaw]

58. Article 1, Section 7

of that document formerly known as the supreme law of the land...just for, you know, nostalgia's sake:

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.


Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.


Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

[Nothing Without Hope]

59. March 15 DU thread re Raw Story's report on Rep. Waxman writing a letter

about this outrage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x667578
thread title (3-15-06 GD): Did Pres KNOWINGLY Violate Constitution on BUDGET?-Rep Waxman Letter to WH
Raw Story report: “Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
RAW STORY - Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew CArd that President Bush signed a version of the Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives. Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the U.S. House of Representatives. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution. The full text of the letter follows….”

I would like to know whose responsibility it was to see to it that the correct copy is provided to the President for signing? What's the process here?

Glad to see this FINALLY reported in a prominent national newspaper. Took them a LOOONNNNNG time to pick up the story, didn't it? :grr:

[stickdog]

60. Constitution? We don't need no steenking Constitution!

We are the Busheralis!

[nonconformist]

61. Wow. Just, wow. I'm speechless. nt