Washington Post – Mar. 24, 2006:
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.
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.
Update: Bush may have known about the problem before he signed it!
Today Rep. Waxman sent a letter to the White House Chief of Staff asking that the White House 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.”
Continuing from the Washington Post article…
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.
As the measure was being sent to the House last month, a Senate clerk inadvertently changed that 13-month-restriction to 36 months, a $2 billion alteration. With the mistaken change, the measure squeaked through the House, 216 to 214.
After the mistake was revealed, Republican leaders were loath to fight the battle again by having another vote, so White House officials simply deemed the Senate version to be the law.
The Bush administration is relying on some ancient legal mumbo-jumbo…
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.
However…
There’s a small problem with this analysis. In Field, the House, Senate and the President all signed the same bill. The only discrepancy was between the signed version and the version ultimately transcribed to the Congressional Record. In the present case, however, the House signed one version of a bill and the Senate and President Bush signed another.
“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…”
The Right ridiculed Clinton for not knowing what “is” means. But it appears that the entire Bush administration doesn’t know the difference between “and” and “or.”
Yes Todd, if a bill was not passed properly by the Congress, it should be sent back. to conference.
But in the mean time, it’s oh so much fun to make silly remarks about the impending monarchy of King George.
I am sure the founding fathers anticipated the internet, electronic warrantless searches, armor piercing bullets and automatic weapons when they wrote the constitution and the amendments. Its funny how Repugs want to stick to the intention and the letter of the law but ignore the same things when they are inconvenient.
The second amendment states:
At the time this was written the US depended on militias for defense. There was no standing army. Therefore one would think, since we now have an army, that the right to bear arms no longer applies. Of course Repugs don’t see it that way and simply ignore the militia clause altogether. Where is the original intent here?
Even if the militia statement was invalid, the founding fathers were talking about very primitive guns that were hard and slow to load. I don’t think they would have felt the same way about machine guns, grenade throwers and hollow point bullets. Besides how do you read the founding father’s minds? Can we really know what they meant unless they wrote it down? Maybe they did, maybe they wrote some sort of reference to guide us. You know what? They did, it is called the constitution. If they wanted it to stay pristine and unchanged, they wouldn’t have allowed amendments.
Mike, you wouldn’t give me any credit no matter what term I used. So I’ll call them as I see them. I find Republicans repugnant. When you use the term liberal, I suppose you say that with love and care.
Paul,
While I agree it isn’t Bush’s fault for being presented an unconstitutional bill, I believe his subsequent remarks about it “not mattering” show vast constitutional ignorance as well as his lack of concern about the Constitution in general.
Mike,
I will agree with you as long as you “republicans” stop using terms like “leftys”, “commies” etc.
Liberal is a name given to a particular ideology, just as conservative is. If you identify yourself as liberal, why should you be offended when somebody calls you it. You say that you find Republicans to be repugnant… what if they are a liberal Republican? How about a conservative Democrat? This loyalty to a particular political party by those who are not actively holding a political office is somewhat silly. I try to vote and make judgements based on the expressed views of a particular person, not the party logo on their lapel pin.
Sounds the Alarm,
Although I will confess that my voting trends significantly towards Republicans; if I had my druthers, I would prefer a good libertarian candidate. I don’t believe that I have ever called anybody here a “commie” or a “lefty”
To me being called a liberal is a point of pride. I don’t shirk from it. However I can tell that when a conservative uses it, they don’t mean it in a positive way.
Alex,
What may seem to be a primitive weapon to you was considered state-of-the-art at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed. Nobody seriously claims that people should be able to possess nuclear weapons, but their right to possess any conventional arms that might be used in service of the militia should be protected.
You also need to examine your early American history a bit more. The reason why there was a general desire to stay away from having a standing army during times of peace was that they were viewed as a tool of oppression and a threat to liberty. This topic, and weighing it against the prudence of having a professional army, was given quite a bit of attention by Hamilton in the Federalist.
You might also want to look back at what the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought over. British troops were sent to seize a weapons cache that the colonists possessed. Because the best way to impose an authoritarian rule is to take away the people’s means to rebel.
Yeah Mike, we could oppose our government with a few guns. Maybe 200 years ago, we could have stood a chance but today? How do you oppose a government that has access to all the state of the art weapons of war? Not with a few machine guns. Remember Waco?
This is a joke. I don’t seee what the big deal is. Name one President that hasn’t done this! They are called Executive Decissions! Just because Pres. Bush is a hot topic for bashing by the Democrats, everybody makes a big deal about it and thinks this is the first time. Abraham Lincoln was the first one to create a executive decision, when he commanded troops to move into battle and thats when he started the US Civil War.
Now i don’t think they should have this power. It is nowhere in the Constitution. But just because Pres. Bush did this, everybody thinks he is so evil.
“Name one President that hasn’t done this!”
I know of none. If you think that every president has signed a bill passed in the Senate by not by the House, please offer proof!
By the way, not even the Bush administration is calling this an executive decision.
The practicality of waging a successful armed rebellion today has no bearing on the right to possess and bear arms.
Absent the whole 2nd amendment militia issue, you could also make an argument for gun ownership from another angle — if it is agreed that people have the right to self-defense, then they must also logically, by implication, have the right to possess the means to defend themselves.
Paul, if the government starts oppressing its own people then the gloves are off. If you no longer have to worry about pesky things like elections and laws you can then just blow away people with the most efficient weapon system. Are you claiming that we are blowing people away indiscriminately in Iraq?
I don’t want to get caught up in a discussion about the 2nd amendment. The point is that we cannot know what the founding fathers had in mind. We can only go by what they wrote down. The world has changed a lot in 230 years. We must take in consideration those changes when we apply the constitution otherwise it will become irrelevant. The idea that it only means what the founding fathers meant is ridiculous because we can never know exactly what they meant. We have to go by the language as written. It must be interpreted. The original intent plays a part but it cannot be the only way to interpret the constitution. If the founding fathers didn’t want us to use our intellects to make our laws, they wouldn’t have allowed us to amend the constitution. They realized that they could not anticipate everything. They knew it had to adapt and grow.
Mike,
Making comments about King George is fun and all, but since Conservatives consider George W. Bush to be infallible, would it be mor appropriate to call him Pope George?
Re 39, re 36,
You are so full of sh*t. Since you don’t have an argument you poo poo the question.
Alex,
You are shooting around the target instead of hitting black.
As you point out, the amendment process is exactly the tool the founders gave to future generation to change the function and structure of the government. But you cannot take the unamended portions of the Constitution (or any law for that matter) and change their meanings to something other than what the intentions of those who enacted them were. If our laws or Constitution need to be changed to fit the changing times, then they should be changed, not simply reinterpretted to give them a wholy different meaning.
The real problem for people who wish to enact change is that it’s much more difficult to successfully pass an amendment than it is to get a judicial reinterpretation.
Theopoopoolus, I am not going to abide by your concept of “reality.” I can’t win if I play by your rules.
Paul,
Re 29 – No – not in this article, but remarks reported by Bush on CNN on a report about this specific topic.
Mike, the problem is that when Repugs don’t like a decision they call it judicial activism. It is just a double standard whenever it is convenient the Repugs engage in their own judicial activism they just don’t call it that. Its only wrong if the Democrats do it.
Ken you need to wake up, there are maybe a handful of real conservatives in both houses of Congress. Many people in Congress like to use that term to identify themselves during election years but they have no real conservative convictions hence, why spending is 1/3 higher (subtracting war costs)under Bush than it was under Clinton. Also Alex you really need to get Markos to give you some updated talking points.