PDA

View Full Version : Federal Court Rules Major Biden Spending Bill Was Passed Unconstitutionally



Gunny
02-28-2024, 07:03 PM
Federal Court Rules Major Biden Spending Bill Was Passed Unconstitutionally (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-court-rules-major-biden-spending-bill-was-passed-unconstitutionally/ar-BB1j0BP6?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a19a2f04052547b0974530d611144410&ei=73)

SassyLady
03-01-2024, 01:12 AM
Federal Court Rules Major Biden Spending Bill Was Passed Unconstitutionally (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-court-rules-major-biden-spending-bill-was-passed-unconstitutionally/ar-BB1j0BP6?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a19a2f04052547b0974530d611144410&ei=73)
And?

Gunny
03-01-2024, 09:17 AM
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a $1.7 trillion spending bill was unconstitutionally passed in December 2022 due to the lack of a quorum, blocking enforcement of a law about pregnant women in the workplace.
United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas said (https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Texas-v.-Garland-Final-Judgment.pdf) that the House of Representatives improperly passed the spending package because a quorum of members was not physically present.

The then-Democrat-controlled body allowed proxy voting (https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/23/house-sends-1-7-trillion-spending-package-biden-desk/) for the measure, which 215 Democrats and nine Republicans supported.


“Although the Court finds that the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act violated the Constitution, Texas does not seek an injunction of—and the Court does not enjoin—the entire Act,” Hendrix wrote in the 120-page opinion (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Quorum%20Clause%20opinion.pdf). “Rather, the Court enjoins only the application of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against Texas. The relief granted here is limited to abating the injury that Texas has proven will occur.”
“Based on the Quorum Clause’s text, original public meaning, and historical practice, the Court concludes that the Quorum Clause bars the creation of a quorum by including non-present members participating by proxy,” Hendrix added. “Supreme Court precedent has long held that the Quorum Clause requires presence, and the Clause’s text distinguishes those absent members from the quorum and provides a mechanism for obtaining a physical quorum by compelling absent members to attend. This power to compel attendance makes little sense divorced from physical presence.”


PWFA:
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: What You Need to Know (americanbar.org) (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/labor_law/publications/labor_employment_law_news/issue-summer-2023/pregnant-workers-fairness-act/)

Self-explanatory. The only thing I don't know is what Texas' issue with it is. Other than the fact that it's a Dem Bill. Wouldn't be the first law that Texas has opposed "just because".