Replies

Here is part one.

What is clear is that the Constitutional subterfuge is being attempted entirely because the House no longer has the votes to pass a properly modified bill.

They are advertising the fact that they brazenly want to ignore the Constitution.

Not ony must they be slapped down hard, but must also be prosecuted for attempted treason.

"""""but must also be prosecuted for attempted treason.""". I totally agree.

The left has so used the Supreme Court to legislate, when it served their purpose. But now things have changed.

O'Zero has deemed the Supreme Court to be irrelevant, he did this when he humiliated them at the State of the Union.

That was a message to them, and he knew they could not protest at that time, that "We no longer need you for anything"

I don't think this set well with the Judges, not even the Liberal ones. Sotomeyer did not look to happy about what was said. Even the Liberal Judges deem their jobs as being important and respectable.

So, when this H.C. mess comes before them, I have no doubt that they will remember the treatment they received and fully understand what is at stake. If not, we are not a country of laws any longer.

What is clear is that the Constitutional subterfuge is being attempted entirely because the House no longer has the votes to pass a properly modified bill.

From 524 U.S. 417 (emphasis mine):

"Third, our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105–33” after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.” Art. I, § 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105–33 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law—one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature."