Texas AG sues Biden for violating Constitution with signature on omnibus bill

[Elderberry]

WND By Katelynn Richardson 2/16/2023

https://www.wnd.com/2023/02/texas-ag-sues-biden-violating-constitution-signature-omnibus-bill/

'He never seems to let the law get in the way of him doing whatever he wants'

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit Wednesday against President Biden for what he describes as the “unlawful” signing of the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 bill, supported by just nine House Republicans, was passed days before Christmas with more than half of the members absent and voting by proxy. Paxton’s case contends that the U.S. Constitution mandates a quorum be present to vote on legislation, without which the House can only “adjourn from day to day” and “compel the attendance of absent Members,” making the bill’s passage illegitimate.

“Though President Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, his signature was nullity because the act never ‘passed the House of Representatives,'” according to the lawsuit.

Texas Attorney General
@TXAG

In a stunning violation of the Constitution, the U.S. House passed the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill without a quorum present. I am suing the Biden Admin to end the implementation of this bill because it was never lawfully enacted and is unconstitutional.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton-sues-biden-signing-unconstitutional-17-trillion-spending-bill

Attorney General Paxton is suing President Biden and members of his Administration over the unlawful signing and implementation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which was the latest omnibus spending bill.

The U.S. Constitution requires that a quorum of members of the U.S. House of Representatives be present for the lower chamber of Congress to conduct business. When the House passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 in December 2022, fewer than half of its members were present and more than half voted by proxy.

The U.S. Constitution empowers a quorum-less House only to “adjourn from day to day” or “compel the attendance of absent members.” Because “attendance” means physical presence, the U.S. Constitution does not allow voting by proxy to constitute a quorum. And because the omnibus spending bill wasn’t passed when a quorum of the House was present, it was never lawfully enacted, is unconstitutional, and the federal government should be enjoined from implementing it. 

    “Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution authorize the House to pass trillion-dollar bills when more than half the members are in their homes, vacationing, or are anywhere physically other than the United States Capitol Building,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Our Founders would be turning over in their graves if they could see how former Speaker Nancy Pelosi used proxy voting to upend our constitutional system. That is especially true regarding the 1.7 trillion-dollar bill that should have never been ‘passed.’ Joe Biden, who’s been in Washington for half a century, should have known he couldn’t legally sign it either. But he never seems to let the law get in the way of him doing whatever he wants to do.”

[Fishrrman]

This is an interesting legal challenge.

Would the Supreme Court grant "standing"...?

[Kamaji]

How A Texas Lawsuit Over Proxy Voting Could Nuke Biden’s Entire $1.7 Trillion Spending Spree

Paxton makes an unassailable case, but with such a huge consequence resting on the outcome, courts may be hesitant to intervene.

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND
FEBRUARY 22, 2023

Joe Biden’s Dec. 29 signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 was invalid because the House never actually passed the omnibus spending bill the president purportedly signed into law. At least, that’s what Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claims in a little-noticed lawsuit he filed last week against the Biden administration. If a court agrees, the taxpayer-funded $1.7 trillion federal spending spree — and every other aspect of that bill — could be rendered void.

While the “if” in that sentence does some heavy lifting, it is not because Paxton’s lawsuit is weak on either the facts or the law. On the contrary, his complaint in Paxton v. Department of Justice makes a seemingly unassailable case that the House of Representatives lacked the constitutionally mandated quorum to pass the appropriations act. Nonetheless, the enormity of a court striking an omnibus spending bill may leave the judicial branch shrinking from its constitutional duty.

As Paxton’s lawsuit explains, the appropriations bill began its life as House Resolution 2617, which the lower chamber passed in September of 2021. The Senate passed a different version of the bill in November of 2022, and because the bills were not identical, the differences had to be reconciled and then approved by each body. The Senate approved the House’s amendments to the bill on Dec. 22, 2022, and the next day, members of the House met to consider the Senate’s changes.

Here’s where the constitutional problem arose, says Paxton’s lawsuit. When the House met on Dec. 23, 2022, to vote on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, it lacked a quorum to conduct business. Only 201 of the representatives were present. Nonetheless, the House proceeded with the vote. But it didn’t just count the votes of the present members. It added to the tally an extra 226 votes, cast by present House lawmakers on behalf of absent ones who had appointed them “proxies.”

*  *  *

It would make little sense for the Constitution to expressly say that if a quorum were lacking, the House was “authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members,” if proxy voting were allowed, Paxton first notes. Relatedly, the complaint highlights, “delegates at the Constitutional Convention rejected proposals that would have allowed Representatives to ‘vote by proxy’ — but only after James Madison added language giving Congress the power to compel absent Members’ attendance.” The founders had also previously rejected proxy voting during debates over the Articles of Confederation, further illustrating that only those physically present could be counted for purposes of a quorum.

*  *  *

Source:  https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/22/how-a-texas-lawsuit-over-proxy-voting-could-nuke-bidens-entire-1-7-trillion-spending-spree/

[Kamaji]

I wager this fails on a claim of lack of standing.

[Elderberry]

Analysis: If courts follow Constitution, Biden's $1.7 trillion spending plan is dead

WND 2/22/2023

Will the judiciary shrink from its duty?

An analysis of a new lawsuit by the Texas attorney general over Joe Biden's massive $1.7 trillion spending spree, "adopted" by Congress just months ago, shows that if America's federal judiciary does its "constitutional duty," the bill is dead.

The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier reported on the lawsuit by Ken Paxton against Biden for putting his signature on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 bill.

It's because the bill was signed after being adopted in a vote in the House which didn't even have a majority of the members present.

The Constitution's only options for the House when there is no majority would be to "adjourn from day to day" or "compel the attendance of absent members."

It charges the Biden signature "was nullity" because the spending spree never actually was adopted by the House.

Now an analysis by Margot Cleveland, the senior legal correspondent at the Federalist, points out that the law is clear, the evidence is there, the circumstances are uncontested, and if the judiciary does its "constitutional duty," the law will be ruled void.

More: https://www.wnd.com/2023/02/analysis-courts-follow-constitution-bidens-1-7-trillion-spending-plan-dead/

[Kamaji]

Standing