26<\/div>SHARES<\/span><\/div>

<\/span>Facebook<\/span><\/a><\/span>Twitter<\/span><\/a>

Joe Biden\u2019s signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 may, in effect, be null and void by day\u2019s end if a federal\u2064 judge in Lubbock, Texas, agrees with the state\u2019s attorney general that the $1.7 trillion spending bill \u200cwas never validly \u2063enacted because the House of Representatives lacked a constitutionally mandated quorum. <\/p>\n

The \u200dbench \u200ctrial in this hugely important case, State of Texas v. Dept. of Justice<\/em>, begins at 10:30 a.m. Eastern on Monday \u200dbefore district court Judge James Hendrix \u2014 a Trump appointee who was first nominated by Barack Obama. <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Here\u2019s your lawsplainer so you can follow\u2064 along with the \u2064developments.<\/p>\n
Pelosi Playing \u200dFast and Loose with the Constitution<\/h2>\n
On Feb. 15, \u200c2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit<\/a> in State of Texas v.\u2064 Dept. of Justice<\/em>, challenging the constitutionality of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. As Paxton\u2019s lawsuit explained, the omnibus spending bill \u2062originated in the House of Representatives\u2063 as Resolution 2617. After the lower chamber passed H.R. 2617 in September 2021, the bill went to the Senate, which passed a different version of the bill in November 2022.<\/p>\n
Because the spending bills differed, Congress needed to\u2064 reconcile them, with each body then required to pass the amended version. On Dec. 22, 2022, the Senate approved the House\u2019s amendments to \u200cthe bill, with the House\u200b meeting the next day to consider the \u2063Senate\u2019s changes. <\/p>\n
As I explained<\/a> \u200b shortly\u2062 after Paxton sued the\u200d Biden administration, here\u2019s where the constitutional\u200c problem arose:<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
When the House met on Dec. 23, 2022, to vote on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, it lacked a quorum to conduct\u200c business. Only 201 \u200cof the representatives were present. Nonetheless, the House proceeded with the\u2063 vote. But it\u2063 didn\u2019t just count the votes of\u2062 the present members. It added to the tally an extra 226 votes, cast by \u200dpresent House lawmakers on behalf of absent ones who had appointed them \u2018proxies.\u2019 <\/p>\n
While\u200c the votes of those physically\u2064 present totaled 88 yeas and 113\u200c nays, the House clerk recorded that the bill passed by a\u2062 margin of 225 yea, 201 \u2062nay, and 1 present, relying on a \u200drule originally adopted in May of \u200c2020 that allowed members to \u2018designate[] another Member as a proxy\u2019 to \u2018cast \u2062the vote\u2019 of the designating Member if \u2018a public health emergency due<\/a> to a novel coronavirus is in effect[.]\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Then, on Dec. 29, 2022, Biden signed \u200cthe Consolidated \u2064Appropriations Act, providing for appropriations through the fiscal year ending<\/a> \u2062on Sept. 30, 2023. <\/p>\n
The Quorum Clause Issue<\/h2>\n
In his lawsuit, Paxton argued that because the House proxy rule violates the quorum clause of the Constitution, which Texas maintains requires\u2064 a member\u2019s physical presence,\u200d the Consolidated Appropriations Act \u200cnever became law. <\/p>\n
The quorum clause, found in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, provides:<\/p>\n
\n
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own\u200d Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business<\/strong>; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and \u200dmay be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under\u200d such Penalties as each House may provide.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Whether that\u2062 provision requires the physical presence of members of the House to vote on legislation or\u200d allows the House to authorize voting by proxy is \u200dthe bottom-line question at Monday\u2019s trial.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nTexas Is Right: Proxy Voting Is Verboten <\/h2>\n
From an originalist perspective, which looks at the text, \u2064structure, and original understanding of the\u2063 Constitution, Texas\u2019 quorum clause argument is correct. <\/p>\n
It would make little sense for the Constitution to\u200c expressly say that if a quorum were lacking, the House was \u201cauthorized \u2064to \u2064compel the \u2063Attendance of absent Members,\u201d if proxy voting were allowed. Further, as Paxton\u2019s\u200d complaint notes<\/a>, \u201cdelegates at the Constitutional Convention rejected proposals that would have allowed Representatives to \u2018vote by proxy.\u2019\u201d The founders had also previously rejected proxy voting during debates over the Articles of Confederation, further illustrating that only those physically present counted \u200bfor purposes of a quorum. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has also held<\/a> that to conduct congressional business, the Constitution requires a majority of members to be \u201cactually and physically present.\u201d This aligns with the\u200c meaning of \u201cpresent\u201d at the founding: \u201cnot absent; face\u2063 to face; \u2063being\u200c at hand.\u201d\u00a0Other constitutional provisions, such as record-keeping requirements and impeachment rules\u2062 in \u2064the Senate, indicate the need\u200b for physical<\/em> presence<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Congress\u2019s operations over the two centuries before Covid-19 lockdowns, \u2064including during \u200cvarious national emergencies, further establish that the quorum clause requires the physical presence of lawmakers. As Texas highlighted \u200cin its lawsuit:<\/p>\n
\n
During the Yellow Fever epidemic, Thomas Jefferson urged President\u2064 Washington to keep Congress sitting\u2063 in\u200b Philadelphia, then the capital, even if it\u2062 meant meeting \u2018in the open f[ie]lds.\u2019 \u2026 [I]n \u200dthe aftermath of that epidemic, the Third Congress enacted a law \u2014 still in force today \u2014 stating that \u2018[w]henever Congress is about to \u200dconvene, and from the prevalence \u2062of contagious sickness, or the existence\u200b of other circumstances, it would, in the opinion of the President, \u2064be hazardous to\u200b the lives or\u200d health of the members to meet at the seat of Government,\u2019 the President could \u2018convene Congress at such\u2062 other place as \u2062he may judge proper.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
There would be no reason to meet \u201cin open\u2063 fields\u201d or to \u201cconvene Congress at such \u200bother place as\u2062 he may\u200b judge proper\u201d if the House and \u200cSenate could instead opt\u200d for proxy voting without the\u200d attendance of elected \u200cofficials. Further, through the Civil War, the\u200d Spanish flu pandemic, the Cold\u200c War, and the 9\/11 terrorist attacks, Congress continued to meet in person. <\/p>\n
Texas Is Right, So Now\u2063 What?<\/h2>\n
This\u2063 long-settled and established practice, coupled with the text and structure of\u200d the Constitution, confirms the quorum\u200c clause requires the physical presence of elected lawmakers. But only 201 members were physically present\u200c in the House on \u200bDec. 23, 2022, meaning the \u2064legislative body lacked a \u2063quorum \u201cto do business.\u201d \u2063Consequently, the\u2062 House could not \u2014 and did not \u2014 pass\u2062 the Consolidated \u2064Appropriations Act. <\/p>\n
So\u2063 does that mean the entire \u2063$1.7 \u200ctrillion omnibus spending bill<\/a> is unconstitutional?<\/p>\n
Yes and no: Because the quorum clause, properly interpreted, required the physical presence of a \u200cmajority of members \u201cto do business,\u201d and because the \u200cHouse lacked the requisite quorum when it purported to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, the $1.7 trillion spending bill was unconstitutionally \u201cenacted.\u201d <\/p>\n
But Texas is\u2062 only challenging two aspects of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief\u200d related to those two provisions. Specifically, \u200cPaxton seeks a ruling that the legislation\u2019s expansion of Title VII\u2019s\u200c anti-discrimination provision\u2064 to require employers, including Texas, to provide \u201creasonable accommodations\u201d to \u201climitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions \u200cof a qualified employee,\u201d is null and void. While Texas maintains it already provides such \u201creasonable accommodations,\u201d this amendment to Title VII harms the state by increasing litigation and other costs when employees \u200dwrongly believe Texas denied them a \u200creasonable \u200baccommodation, the state argues.<\/p>\n
Second, the Lonestar State \u2064challenges the $20 million appropriated to fund\u200d nonprofits and local governments \u200cto connect illegal aliens released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with various social services. This appropriation further encourages illegal immigration and burdens Texas\u2019 education, health care, and other costs, \u2062according to\u200b the state.<\/p>\n
If\u200d Texas prevails following Monday\u2019s bench trial, the court\u2019s ruling would be limited to those\u200b two provisions\u200d of\u200c the Consolidated\u2062 Appropriations\u2063 Act \u200dof \u20642023. However, to strike those two portions of the omnibus spending bill, the federal court would first need to conclude that the House \u2063violated\u200c the \u200cquorum clause\u200b and thus never constitutionally passed the law.<\/p>\n
Consequences\u200d of a Texas Win<\/h2>\n
Because Paxton\u2019s\u2063 complaint is narrow, a win for Texas\u2062 will have limited reach. And because the Biden administration will appeal any adverse decision,\u2064 by the time a decision is final, the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2024, will have come and gone. That means\u2064 the $1.7 trillion \u200dwill already have \u200cbeen spent, and both the $20 \u2063million appropriated to the pilot program to assist illegal aliens<\/a> and every other dollar\u2063 \u201cauthorized\u201d by the omnibus spending\u2064 bill will be history. <\/p>\n
That will \u2062not be the end \u200bof the case,\u2062 however, because of the so-called Pregnant Workers\u2019 Fairness Act that Congress shoehorned into the spending legislation. That portion of\u2064 the \u200domnibus bill had nothing to do with appropriations and instead amended the substantive portions of Title VII. So \u2063even after all the money is spent, there will \u2064be one aspect of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 that could be stricken.<\/p>\n
Knowing\u2063 that ruling in Texas\u2019 favor \u2063won\u2019t affect any of the $1.7 trillion in the spending bill should assuage any practical concerns Judge Hendrix may have\u200d that the\u200b bill is too big to declare unconstitutional. And while striking the amendment to Title VII will have some ramifications, Congress can\u2062 always re-up the \u2064\u201creasonable accommodation\u201d provision, although that is unlikely with the current red House.<\/p>\n
Yet the consequences of ruling in\u2064 Texas\u2019 favor would still be huge because it would\u2062 be a declaration by a federal court that a majority of members of Congress and President Joe Biden violated their duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States \u2014 and did so to the tune of $1.7 trillion. <\/p>\n
Ruling against Texas, \u200dthough, would be equally significant \u2064\u2014 \u2064but devastatingly so \u2014 because \u200dit would be a sign \u2064to our country that the judicial branch is unwilling to operate \u200bas a\u200d check on the \u2064other two branches of government. If Judge\u200d Hendrix and the appellate courts ignore the \u200cquorum clause \u200bor sidestep\u200c the constitutional issue, which is more \u2062likely, they will declare to Americans that our Constitution and the rule of law \u2063mean nothing. <\/p>\n
\u201cMany Americans\u2062 may not even know\u2063 that fewer than half the\u200d House members were present when Congress passed the largest spending bill in the history of our country. This was \u200ca flagrant violation of the Constitution. The relief sought in this case is \u200bnarrow, but it is a matter of principle that we uphold our Constitutional order, and make clear that the federal government must never do this again,\u201d\u2062 Paxton told The Federalist.<\/p>\n
Logistics of Monday<\/h2>\n
In pretrial haggling, the \u200cparties agreed\u200b on the logistics of the trial, with Texas and the Biden administration both agreeing \u2064to\u200d present their cases based\u2064 on written declarations \u2062submitted by the parties, \u2063along with other documentary evidence. No witnesses will be called, according to a person familiar\u2064 with the case, with both sides\u200b also waiving opening\u200b statements.<\/p>\n
The bench trial before the district court judge will proceed, The Federalist has learned, with each \u200bside essentially \u200cpresenting closing statements \u200cthat highlight the evidence that the court has already admitted in advance of Monday\u2019s hearing. Arguments \u2062will begin at 10:30 \u200da.m. ET, with Texas allocated one hour\u200d to \u2064address issues of \u201cjusticiability,\u201d which concerns whether Paxton\u2019s lawsuit is one appropriate for the court\u200c to consider. The Biden administration will then have an\u200d hour to counter Paxton\u2019s legal arguments. Texas will have another hour to address the merits of its quorum clause \u200dargument, \u2062along with the arguments concerning the appropriate \u2064remedy. And the Biden administration \u200cwill again have an hour to counter \u200bPaxton\u2019s legal team. Texas, as the plaintiff, will have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to end \u2064the argument.<\/p>\n
The \u2018Justiciability\u2019 Punt <\/h2>\n
Since the first two hours will focus on the question \u2063of \u2018justiciability,\u2019 watch for a punt by the court because if Judge Hendrix finds the case is \u200b\u201cnon-justiciable,\u201d he will\u200b never reach the merits of the quorum clause question.<\/p>\n
We \u200bwill \u200bsoon know whether our Constitution and \u200cthe rule of law will crumble under the exigency of circumstances or the desires of politicians.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
What \u200care the key arguments made by Texas in its lawsuit challenging the \u200cconstitutionality of the Consolidated\u200b Appropriations \u200bAct\u200b of 2023?<\/h2>\n
\u200d Title: \u2063Texas Lawsuit Challenges\u200c Validity of $1.7\u200d Trillion \u200cSpending Bill: Exploring the Impact<\/p>\n
Introduction:<\/p>\n
The signing\u200b of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 \u200dby President Joe \u200cBiden may face\u2064 nullification if a federal judge in\u2063 Lubbock, \u2064Texas agrees with the state’s\u2063 attorney general.\u200b The\u2064 lawsuit filed\u200b by Texas\u2064 challenges the constitutionality of the spending bill, claiming that \u2062it was never\u200c validly enacted due to the House of\u200c Representatives lacking a \u2063constitutionally mandated quorum. The trial, State of \u2063Texas v. Dept. of Justice, will be presided \u200dover by District Court Judge\u200b James Hendrix, beginning on Monday. This article explores the key arguments and potential consequences of the case.<\/p>\n
Background:<\/p>\n
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the\u200d Consolidated Appropriations\u2063 Act of 2023 on February 15, 2023. The bill \u2064originated\u2063 in the House of Representatives\u2064 as Resolution 2617 and subsequently underwent revisions by \u2062the Senate. However,\u200c when the House\u2062 voted\u200c on the bill, it \u2063lacked a quorum, \u200dwhich requires a majority \u200dof representatives to be present for business to be\u2064 conducted. The House allowed proxy voting, where present members cast votes on behalf \u2063of absent ones, leading to questions over\u2062 the validity\u2064 of the bill.<\/p>\n
The Quorum Clause Issue:<\/p>\n
Paxton \u2062argues that the House proxy rule violates the quorum\u2063 clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires physical presence. This clause dictates that a majority of members constitutes a quorum to conduct business. The interpretation of whether \u200bthis provision allows proxy voting or mandates physical presence is the central question in the trial.<\/p>\n
Texas’ \u200dPosition:<\/p>\n
From\u200d an originalist perspective, which considers the text and original understanding of the Constitution, Texas argues that the\u2063 quorum clause necessitates the physical presence \u200dof \u2062legislators to vote on legislation. Texas highlights that proxy voting was \u2063rejected during the Constitutional Convention and has been inconsistent with historical practices. Additionally, \u2064the\u2063 Supreme Court has held that a \u2064majority\u200c of members must \u200bbe physically present to conduct congressional business.<\/p>\n
Implications of a Texas\u200b Win:<\/p>\n
Should Texas prevail in the\u2063 trial, the court’s ruling would likely be limited to the specific provisions challenged\u2062 by Texas. These provisions include the expansion of Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision\u200c and the allocation of $20 million to support services for released illegal aliens. However, with\u200b the Biden administration likely to appeal, \u200dany decision may not \u200bbe finalized until after the spending bill’s funds have been spent.<\/p>\n
Consequences of Ruling Against Texas:<\/p>\n
On the other hand, ruling against Texas \u200cwould\u2063 indicate that the judiciary is unwilling\u200c to\u200b fulfill its role as a check on the\u2063 other branches\u200d of government. This would generate\u2064 concerns about the rule of law \u200cand\u200c the adherence \u2063to \u200bconstitutional principles. The magnitude of a ruling against Texas would undermine the significance of constitutional requirements and the duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.<\/p>\n
Conclusion:<\/p>\n
The outcome \u200cof the State of \u2064Texas v.\u200d Dept.\u2064 of Justice \u2064trial carries significant implications for\u200c the validity of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 and\u200b the adherence to constitutional principles.\u200b While a Texas win may have limited\u200d effects on \u2063the spending bill itself, it could demonstrate that constitutional violations have occurred. Conversely, ruling against Texas would raise concerns about the commitment to the rule of law and constitutional principles. The trial’s conclusion will shape the understanding of how the Constitution \u200cshould be\u2062 interpreted and applied in future legislative proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a potential twist, Joe Biden’s signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 could become invalid if a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, agrees with the state’s attorney general. The argument is that the $1.7 trillion spending bill was not properly enacted due to a lack of constitutionally required quorum in the House of Representatives<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2155534,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2155533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2155533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2155533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2155533\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2155534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2155533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2155533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2155533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

Texas Is Right: Proxy Voting Is Verboten <\/h2>\nFrom an originalist perspective, which looks at the text, \u2064structure, and original understanding of the\u2063 Constitution, Texas\u2019 quorum clause argument is correct. <\/p>\n