Rawstory has a report up right now with the full text of a letter recently disclosed by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in summary stating:
President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
If indeed true that there were a concerted intent to alter the desired will of the House, then I would surmise Bush is in some hot water.
The letter, dated today, goes on to assert that Bush was made aware on Feb. 8 that the version he was about to sign was different from that passed by the house:
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.
This begs the question: why would Bush have an obsolete version of a bill on his desk in the first place? Can someone explain how the mechanics of the process work? Can a bill be simultaneously drafted and sent to the president while another draft goes to production following final passage?
Choice excerpt from Waxman's letter:
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.
Click on the link above for the full piece.
UPDATE: How a bill becomes a law in the United States
*Oh wait, Bush did include a signing statement (he's off the hook):
President's Statement on Signing the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005"
Fact sheetIn Focus: 2007 Budget
Today, I have signed into law S. 1932, the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005." The Act reduces unnecessary spending of taxpayer dollars, reflecting a commitment to fiscal responsibility.
The executive branch shall construe section 1936(d)(2) of the Social Security Act as enacted by section 6034 of the Act, which purports to make consultation with a legislative agent a precondition to execution of the law, to call for but not mandate such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.
Sections 5006(b) and 5008(c) of the Act, and section 401A(a)(2)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as enacted by section 8003 of the Act, call for executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 8, 2006.
UPDATE 2:
An interesting comment from
B Rubble posits that, regardless of the constitutionality of Bush's maneuver (i.e - whether or not he can claim to be acting as a co-equal party to the legislative process by summarily authorizing a preferable version from that passed by the house), the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2005 may NOT in fact be law as defined by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Once again, with the Bush administration, we find ourselves in the Twilight Zone of lawmaking where the constitution is bent around a warped view of the executive's universe - that is, assuming that this oversight was purposeful. No one seems to have clarified what exactly was communicated to Bush during that phone call on Feb. 8.
From Findlaw:
California Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman solicited the views of a number of Constitutional experts on this very question. FindLaw's Michael Dorf advised the Congressman that "Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution specifies that a bill becomes a law when passed by both house of Congress and signed by the President. S. 1932 was not passed by the House of Representatives. Thus, it is not a law."
University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt similarly said, "This legislation is question does not satisfy the requirements of the Bicameral Clause of the Constitution." And American University law professor Jamin Raskin reported, "The 'Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005' may be something but it is not law within the meaning of the Constitution."