President May Have Known of Constitutional Defect Before Signing Bill

[Guest guest]

They are now changing the bills illegally and then illegally signing them into

law.

 

 

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_32890.shtml

 

 

President May Have Known of Constitutional Defect Before Signing Bill

 

By: Waxman office

Published: Mar 15, 2006 at 08:12

 

 

 

 

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. "

 

The 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, § 7.