Congress’s $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill And Unconstitutional Proxy Voting Go On Trial In Texas

[Hoodat]

Congress’s $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill And Unconstitutional Proxy Voting Go On Trial In Texas

MARGOT CLEVELAND  |  JANUARY 22, 2024

Since the quorum clause requires the physical presence of elected lawmakers, does that make the entire $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill unconstitutional?

Joe Biden’s signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 may, in effect, be null and void by day’s end if a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, agrees with the state’s attorney general that the $1.7 trillion spending bill was never validly enacted because the House of Representatives lacked a constitutionally mandated quorum.

The bench trial in this hugely important case, State of Texas v. Dept. of Justice, begins at 10:30 a.m. Eastern on Monday before district court Judge James Hendrix — a Trump appointee who was first nominated by Barack Obama.

Here’s your lawsplainer so you can follow along with the developments.  .  .

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/22/congresss-1-7-trillion-spending-bill-and-unconstitutional-proxy-voting-go-on-trial-in-texas/

[Hoodat]

As I explained shortly after Paxton sued the Biden administration, here’s where the constitutional problem arose:

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.’

While the votes of those physically present totaled 88 yeas and 113 nays, the House clerk recorded that the bill passed by a margin of 225 yea, 201 nay, and 1 present, relying on a rule originally adopted in May of 2020 that allowed members to ‘designate[] another Member as a proxy’ to ‘cast the vote’ of the designating Member if ‘a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect'

[Hoodat]

Article I, Section 5

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.



Why does it take the State of Texas to file suit?  Shouldn't McCarthy or McConnell have done that?

[Smokin Joe]

Article I, Section 5

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.



Why does it take the State of Texas to file suit?  Shouldn't McCarthy or McConnell have done that?

Do we really think more than a handful up there have even read the Constitution, at least since they were required to in High School?