This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:
Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
March 15, 2010
Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also "friends of the court" in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.
From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:
|Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.|
Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.
And their argument went thus:
|"Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).|
"Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.
"Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses."
Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.
Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:
- Nancy Pelosi
- Henry Waxman
- Louise Slaughter
Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children's future.
Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!
You can access the complete story on-line here:
Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP's Self-Executing Rule In 2005
March 16, 2010