See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
Source:
Raw Story
URL Source: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/C ... _House_Did_President_0315.html
Published: Mar 15, 2006
Author: Raw Story
Post Date: 2006-03-15 19:12:54 by aristeides
Keywords: Congressman, President, knowingly
Views: 98
Comments: 14
Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass? RAW STORY 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 Budget 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 House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution. The full text of the letter follows: March 15, 2006 The Honorable Andrew Card Chief of Staff The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 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. Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2] I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President. I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious. The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution. I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Enclosure [1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006). [2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006). [3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, 33; 7.
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Hey, it was just one more goddamn piece of paper that crossed his desk. Besides, they didn't read the damn thing either.
-- Rodney Anonymous The change in the bill that seems to have been snuck in at the last moment, in the version of the bill that is considered passed, is of financial benefit to the insurance companies. I strongly suspect the snafu was deliberate and knowing. Remember the provision protecting Big Pharma that Frist and Hastert secretly stuck in the defense appropriations bill at the last moment in December? That would have been before it was reported that Frist and DeLay had day traders operating in their congressional offices.
Sorry, but even if it was totally against the Constitution and a major mistake, Captain Crackers isn't going to be held accountable. Just like every fucking traitor in congress who signed the Patriot Act into law without reading.
You see, for every three or four rednecks who think that all African-Americans are Willie Horton; there are one or two white liberals who think that all African-Americans are Langston Hughes. Both sides are, of course, wrong. All African-Americans are, in fact, Jimmy "J.J." Walker.
#2. To: Tauzero (#1)
#3. To: aristeides (#0)
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#4. To: aristeides (#2)
This is being challenged in court but I've heard no updates as of yet: Lawsuit Filed By Attorney Jim Zeigler Challenging Deficit Reduction Act Lawsuit Filed By Attorney Jim Zeigler Challenging Deficit Reduction Act Attorney Claims Bill Passed Illegally For Immediate Release MOBILE, Ala./EWORLDWIRE/Feb. 13, 2006 --- A federal judge in Mobile, Alabama was asked Monday to rule that the Deficit Reduction Act is unconstitutional. A request for declaratory judgment was filed Monday by Jim Zeigler a Mobile, Alabama attorney and Republican activist. He claims the Feb. 8 budget act was not lawfully enacted. Zeigler says Congress violated requirements of the U.S. Constitution because different budget bills passed the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. The President signed the senate version into law Feb. 8. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade, no hearing date was set. Zeigler says the Act would penalize church tithes and normal gifting by senior citizens, including presents for Christmas, birthdays, weddings, graduations and charitable donations. "All gifts by a senior would be totaled for the five years preceding nursing home admission," said Zeigler. "He would then have to pay five years of donations back to Medicaid before becoming eligible for nursing home coverage. This Act penalizes faithful givers and hurts church budgets. Senior citizens are the lifeblood of many churches." Zeigler was elected a Bush Delegate to the 2000 and 2004 Republican National Conventions. He served on the Bush legal team in Florida in the 2004 election. A previous suit Zeigler brought against the federal "527 Act" won a declaration that the act was unconstitutional, but the order was later reversed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The 527 Act requires political groups to register and report to the Internal Revenue Service. HTML: http://newsroom.eworld
"An eighth-grader in civics class knows that a bill cannot become law unless the identical bill passes the House and Senate and is signed by the President," said Zeigler. "Congressmen did not read the bill, and they made a serious, foolish mistake. The Senate bill says patients dependent on medical equipment such as oxygen get to live for 13 months. The House bill says they get to live 36 months."
http://wire.com/w r/021306/13769.htm
size=1> PDF: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/pdf/021306/13769.pdf
ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/ 308847.htm
NEWSROOM RSS FEED: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/xml/newsrooms/308847.xml
LOGO: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/ 308847.htm
CONTACT:
Jim Zeigler
Jim Zeigler, Attorney
1301 Azalea Road
Mobile, AL 36693
PHONE. 251-660-2060 / 251-656-0292
FAX. 251-650-1557
EMAIL: legal@jimzeigler.com
SOURCE: Attorney Jim Zeigler
#5. To: aristeides (#2)
Could very well be. The furor strikes me as laughable though -- a defense of one of the few remaining fig leaves providing color of law, rule of law having mostly been lost a long time ago.
I strongly suspect the snafu was deliberate and knowing.
You see, for every three or four rednecks who think that all African-Americans are Willie Horton; there are one or two white liberals who think that all African-Americans are Langston Hughes. Both sides are, of course, wrong. All African-Americans are, in fact, Jimmy "J.J." Walker.
-- Rodney Anonymous
#6. To: aristeides (#0)
Waxman is curious about presidential legality? Where was he when Clinton was snapping Monica's thong in the oval office?
I work hard, every day of my life, just stayin' alive.
#7. To: Con Vallian (#6)
Monkey monster signing a bogus bill is no worse than Clinton snapping an intern's thong. Both endanger our constitutional republic and should be treated with the same degree of moral and legal consequence, right bot?
Waxman is curious about presidential legality? Where was he when Clinton was snapping Monica's thong in the oval office?
#8. To: fatidic (#7)
How is getting kinky with a Mossad spy like Monica in any way comparable to getting kinky with a Mossad spy like Chalabi?
Thanks for Prohibition and the war against drugs. Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks. Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!- William S Burroughs
#9. To: Con Vallian (#6)
Letsee, snapping a thong...inappropriate. Violating separation of powers...illegal. Run back over to the womb of FR...you outta you class here bro.
#10. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#3)
yep, like "henrykissinger" said over on LF, "...it's not as if you sheepie can do anything about it can you..."
Captain Crackers isn't going to be held accountable
#11. To: Con Vallian (#6)
Hell no, he doesn't give a twit about the rule of law. He's the same as bush, clinton and the rest of the crimminals. He wants only to give the appearance of caring about the law.
Waxman is curious about presidential legality?
#12. To: Dakmar (#8)
I was being sarcastic. The repukes only seem to get upset about sex and not about destruction of our Constitution, selling our government to the lobbyists or foreign governments, or raping the environment, or obstruction of justice or anything else that really matters. But if monkey monster had sex with an animal or a male prostitute (Gannon, e.g.) then the repukes just might start to choke on the koolaid they drink for breakfast in the morning.
How is getting kinky with a Mossad spy like Monica in any way comparable to getting kinky with a Mossad spy like Chalabi?
#13. To: fatidic (#7)
I assure you, you are very
wrong.
right bot?
I work hard, every day of my life, just stayin' alive.
#14. To: Con Vallian (#13)
What am i wrong about? Did you not get that i was being sarcastic or do you think snapping an intern's thong is just as bad as raping the Constitution?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest