Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
 

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Co...dent_0315.html

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The full 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

Stay tuned.

Good luck getting a straightforward explanation from this administration. And isn't it interesting that Bush's version of the bill cut funds which will impact the quality of life of seniors and poorer handicapped people? :mad:

If it can be proved that the president knew the bill was incorrect and willfully signed it with that knowledge then he could be in deep doo doo. Given the slippery nature of this administration, I will not hold my breath. However, with all of the mistakes they've made they're now being scrutinized so it is a really bad time to have done this. So just maybe something will come of it and I can start shouting, "Give me an I, give me a P, give me an E, give me an A..."

I love peaches too. Especially when there's an im in it.:lol:

Other than perhaps Ricew - it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire IMO because here is the succession order

The Vice President Richard Cheney

Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert

President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Secretary of the Treasury John Snow

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns

Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez (born in Cuba and is ineligible)

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (born in Taiwan and is ineligible)

Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta

Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
__________________________________________________________________________________

As for the mistake in the bill, it probably was just that. But, if something can be proven, that will be interesting.

John Snow and his NASTY eyebrows.:lol:

Oh yeah. Dammit Cartman! "President Dick Cheney" does NOT have a nice ring to it! I just know Bush is a snake and I want him to be caught in something.

Gee, they could all start a band and name it "The Incompetents".

Where no one sings on key, plays in tune, or keeps time! Oh the cacophony! :eek:

Nevermind about this, or the dropping poll numbers, or the wire-tapping thing, or the ports thing, or the Plamegate thing... because we're dropping bombs in Iraq again! G.W. is a war time President... you're either with him or against him... and if you're against him it means you don't support the troops and you hate freedom. :rolleyes:

And you're helping the terrorists and are a traitor to your country!

this will be blamed on an incompetent intern...
"how the F do i know what im signing...i have to assume what they place before me is correct."

Do I get to handcuff him :eek:

In some good news on the budget, the Senate just voted 73-27 for an amendment by Specter/Harkin that increases spending for discretionary health and education programs by $7 billion over what Bush is asking for.

:lol: You mean Ken? I don't think he'd mind so much. ;) :laugh: