In win for Paxton, court declares $1.7 trillion federal omnibus was passed unconstitutionally

[Mycroft]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday secured a major victory in his challenge to the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package passed in 2022, with a court declaring that the bill was approved unconstitutionally.


President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 in December of the prior year. The measure effectively set the federal budget for the year by wrapping the 12 annual appropriations bills into a single piece of legislation. Paxton, however, had argued that the House's passage of the measure was unconstitutional as less than half of the lower chamber's members were physically present to vote on it. Many lawmakers who were not present voted by proxy. Paxton had specifically challenged stipulations in the bill that affect his state.

"Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law. In response, the defendants claim, among other things, that this Court has no power to address the issue because it cannot look to extrinsic evidence to question whether a bill became law," the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division wrote. "But because the Court is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution—rather than second-guessing a vote count—the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Quorum Clause opinion.pdf"​

In win for Paxton, court declares $1.7 trillion federal omnibus was passed unconstitutionally

"Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution. This was a stunning violation of the rule of law. I am relieved the Court upheld the Constitution," Paxton said.

justthenews.com

The question now is whether this ruling will be appealed. Depending upon how an appeal fares, this may or may not result in court challenges to other legislation that was passed by the House in a similar manner.

Stay tuned.

 

[Safiel]

The vast majority of laws passed would have to be wiped out.

Both Houses routinely pass bills with only 2 or 3 members in the chamber.

And what of nominees who were approved on unanimous consent.

Are they all serving ultra vires now???

This needs to be wiped out on appeal.

If the Supreme Court has to invoke the politic question doctrine to get rid of this case, so be it.

 

[Safiel]

In any event, there is no violation of the quorum clause in spirit, just in rote appearance.

The quorum clause was designed to prevent a small number of members from being able to hijack a congressional session when the majority of members were absent.

That is not what happened in this case. A majority of members recorded their vote. Whether in person or by proxy, they duly recorded their vote.

 

[anatta]

because the Court is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution—rather than second-guessing a vote count—the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause."

 

[JasperL]

Maybe Biden can cut Texas off from all federal spending, since it wasn't approved by Congress and all... All those Medicare payments to Texas hospitals drying up overnight might put a damper on things in Texas, as would cutting off SS payments, and funding for the military bases down there.

This is such nonsense... Of course the judge was appointed by Trump...

 

[Ug make hammer]

By House rules an established quorum remains valid even if too many members leave. If no member challenges it, there isn't a count and quorum is assumed to still exist.

United States v. Ballin established that while a quorum is constitutionally required, each chamber can choose its own method of counting.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am pretty sure the house is allowed to set its own procedural rules.

 

[StarvedForChange]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday secured a major victory in his challenge to the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package passed in 2022, with a court declaring that the bill was approved unconstitutionally.​

​

​

President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 in December of the prior year. The measure effectively set the federal budget for the year by wrapping the 12 annual appropriations bills into a single piece of legislation. Paxton, however, had argued that the House's passage of the measure was unconstitutional as less than half of the lower chamber's members were physically present to vote on it. Many lawmakers who were not present voted by proxy. Paxton had specifically challenged stipulations in the bill that affect his state.​

​

"Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law. In response, the defendants claim, among other things, that this Court has no power to address the issue because it cannot look to extrinsic evidence to question whether a bill became law," the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division wrote. "But because the Court is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution—rather than second-guessing a vote count—the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause.​

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Quorum Clause opinion.pdf"​

​

In win for Paxton, court declares $1.7 trillion federal omnibus was passed unconstitutionally

"Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution. This was a stunning violation of the rule of law. I am relieved the Court upheld the Constitution," Paxton said.

justthenews.com

The question now is whether this ruling will be appealed. Depending upon how an appeal fares, this may or may not result in court challenges to other legislation that was passed by the House in a similar manner.

Stay tuned.

So, this decision was made by an ultra-right conservative Trump-appointed judge Hendrix in Lubbock. It blocks a portion of Biden's bill that grants pregnant workers stronger legal protection. So, Paxton has a temporary win, subject to appeal in attacking women. Paxton failed, with the court to block the portion of the bill that offered services to non-citizens.

Paxton is a criminal, evil bastard.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-texas-rules-congressional-passage-2022-spending-bill-unconstitutional-2024-02-27/

Hendrix blocked one provision, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, from being enforced against the state after finding the bill was wrongly passed. That law requires employers to provide pregnant workers with reasonable accommodations.

While Hendrix ruled in Texas' favor, he found the state lacked standing to challenge $20 million appropriated in the bill to fund a pilot program that provided voluntary case management and other services to  noncitizens in immigration removal proceedings.

 

[StarvedForChange]

The vast majority of laws passed would have to be wiped out.

Both Houses routinely pass bills with only 2 or 3 members in the chamber.

And what of nominees who were approved on unanimous consent.

Are they all serving ultra vires now???

This needs to be wiped out on appeal.

If the Supreme Court has to invoke the politic question doctrine to get rid of this case, so be it.

I predict it will be wiped out on appeal. The decision was based on a weak technicality that proxy voting, that is voting from remote locations is "illegal" and that congressional members must be physically present. Proxy voting was instituted by Pelosi during the pandemic for congress' safety. Texas is claiming proxy voting unconstitutional. Note that the Constitution was written before Zoom was invented. So ridiculous!

 

[Slartibartfast]

I predict it will be wiped out on appeal. The decision was based on a weak technicality that proxy voting, that is voting from remote locations is "illegal" and that congressional members must be physically present. Proxy voting was instituted by Pelosi during the pandemic for congress' safety. Texas is claiming proxy voting unconstitutional. Note that the Constitution was written before Zoom was invented. So ridiculous!

Courts tend to be reluctant to wade into the internal rules that congress sets for itself. I am honestly surprised this court even did that.

 

[StarvedForChange]

Maybe Biden can cut Texas off from all federal spending, since it wasn't approved by Congress and all... All those Medicare payments to Texas hospitals drying up overnight might put a damper on things in Texas, as would cutting off SS payments, and funding for the military bases down there.

This is such nonsense... Of course the judge was appointed by Trump...

And note also the portion of the bill Paxton succeeded in blocking. Protection for pregnant women. **** Paxton. What a d**k!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Generally, the SCotUS has been hands-off when it comes to the how the other branches conduct their business.

SCotUS won't even take cases relate to the War Powers Acts because the usurpation of Congressional war-power by the PotUS was something Congress did and which Congress can correct.


I will be surprised if this stands

 

[BirdinHand]

Texas going to give back the money they’ve received?