Replies

If the Speaker of the House, the President Pro-tempore of the Senate and the President say it was passed and signed properly, the courts generally take their word for it.

Not so. From the article: "As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’”

Article I, Section 7 goes on about vetoes and overrides but that’s the heart of the matter. Notice it doesn’t say what ‘passed’ means. We all assume it means a vote where the majority of members vote yes but that’s not actually stated. What it takes to pass a bill is left up the rules of each house and courts aren’t likely to get involved in that.

What are you talking about - the exact opposite is true! From the article, again: "Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, however, expressly states that for any bill to become law "the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by the yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." After that, under the Constitution, the president must either sign the bill or hold it for ten days (not counting Sundays), after which it will become law unless Congress adjourns in the interim.

And as for the asinine decalaration that "it doesn’t say what ‘passed’ means" - I guess the Founders figured that if they mandate that "the yeas and Nays" be counted, that meant the yeas would PASS the bill.

That such a stupid objection can be written without mortifying shame is what's really wrong with this country.

Added... A few years ago, Nancy went to go to court to stop Republicans from doing something similar, though on a much smaller scale. Good news, we’ve got her on hypocrisy. Bad news, she lost the court challenge.

"Something similiar?" In other words, NOT THIS.

Get lost, troll - and don't come back until you can at least form a cogent, rational and logical slimy undermining Rat argument.