Article 1, Section 7 - The Ruling Factor

[Guest oldfella]

Deeming vs. the Constitution

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

March 19, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will ram the unpopular Senate health bill through the House without a vote. Article 1, Sect. 7 of the Constitution says she can't.

Many House Democrats are reluctant to go on record in support of the Senate bill. Pelosi's strategy is to "deem" it passed, go straight to a vote on a package of reconciliation "fixes" and then present both the Senate bill and reconciliation package to the president for signing.

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has twice struck down attempts to abbreviate the lawmaking process required by Article 1, Sect 7. Though it's been used before on less controversial legislation, Pelosi's tactic won't survive a constitutional challenge.

* In INS v. Chadha (1982), the high court ruled 7-2 that lawmaking must follow the steps laid out in the Constitution. Foreign student J.R. Chadha (from Kenya, ironically) convinced the Immigration and Naturalization Service to suspend his deportation. The House, acting without the Senate or president, voted to overturn the INS suspension via a "legislative veto" -- a device created by prior law to give either house of Congress the means to overturn certain executive decisions.

Chadha challenged the constitutionality of that arrangement and won. The Supreme Court ruled that the House's action was "legislative" in nature -- and declared that lawmaking is "subject to the procedural requirements of Art. 1, Sect. 7 for legislative action: passage by a majority of both houses and presentation to the president." Anything less is unconstitutional.

Article 1 states: "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."

The Chadha ruling applies to the pending health-care vote because the justices did more than strike down the "legislative veto." They broadly stated that all lawmaking must adhere to the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure" laid out by the framers. No short cuts.

* In Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the court ruled that neither the president nor either house of Congress can depart from that "finely wrought procedure commanded by the Constitution to make a law."

The 1996 Line Item Veto Act had tried to grant the president "cancellation authority" to nullify provisions of laws already enacted that spent money or added to the discretionary budget. The intent was to enable the president to curb spending -- but intentions are irrelevant, the court stated in striking down the '96 act. "Cancellation" is repealing legislation -- and therefore is legislating.

And the Constitution permits only one method of legislating. Both houses of Congress and the president must participate in their prescribed ways. Article 1 procedures, the court said, are "the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself" and cannot be changed

In his dissent in Chadha, Justice Byron White argued that the framers' intent shouldn't preclude giving Congress "flexibility" -- just what Pelosi wants. But twice the court has ruled against it.

The Framers granted the House the "power of the purse" because they deemed it the truest representative of the people. Article 1, Sect. 7 provides that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House." But the court has ruled repeatedly that bills with another purpose that incidentally raise revenue can originate in the Senate.

The Senate health bill raises $500 billion in new taxes over the next decade -- yet no one in Washington insists that the measure ought to have originated in the House, the institution created to protect us from unreasonable taxation. And if Pelosi has her way, these taxes will be "deemed" enacted without any House vote at all.

Betsy McCaughey is the author of two books on the writing of the US Constitution.

PLEASE DONATE TO SUPPORT RESEARCH AND OUTREACH ON THE BILLS. YOUR MONEY WILL BE USED WISELY. THIS IS THE FIGHT OF OUR LIFETIME.

- Betsy

[Guest jackdm3]

When this gets forced through without our consent, what's the counterattack?

[Guest oldfella]

When this gets forced through without our consent, what's the counterattack?

Court Challenge (Supreme Court), if it is "forced" through without the required voting procedure, using Art. 1. Section 7 as the prime argument.

Pete

Edited March 19, 2010 by oldfella

[Guest uofmeet]

Idaho is steaming and ready for attach. hopefully the other states will follow in.

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

By JOHN MILLER (AP) – 1 day ago

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government. "Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Herrera, the group's health task force director.

Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.

Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous.

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."

[Guest uofmeet]

Sorry. computer is having issues this morning. double post on accident

Edited March 19, 2010 by uofmeet
double post

[Guest redbarron06]

Well let not forget that this bill that the House is now voting on creates revenue. Art I sec 7 also requires that all bill of revenue begin in the house and go to the senate not the other way around.

Openign statment of Art 1 sec 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.

Being that this bill places taxes on unearned income, it raises revenue.

That right there, should be enough to have any judge that can spell Constitution to throw the entire bill out the window.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Which is why Mark Levin made his lawsuit along this line, if it's been filed.

[Guest redbarron06]

Which is why Mark Levin made his lawsuit along this line, if it's been filed.

I dont think any suite can be filed until the bill passes but as soon as it does, game on!

[Guest archerdr1]

I watched him talking about it on fox news today. He can't file it until it passes, but he already has all of the legal documents for his lawsuit printed and ready. Thank God for the Constitutional law professionals like him that are on the RIGHT side.