House rules? Precedent? Even the Constitution itself? Pftt! Politics . . .

[bigtree]

say republicans . . .


Pelosi Wants Ethics Probe of Deficit Bill

Friday February 17, 2006 6:46 PM

By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5627819,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded an ethics investigation Thursday into the passage of deficit-reduction legislation that President Bush recently signed, a new twist in an episode of Capitol intrigue that blends election-year politics and questions of constitutional law.

``Republican leaders chose to ignore House rules, precedent and even the Constitution itself'' in sending the politically charged measure to the White House, said Pelosi, D-Calif.

She said the legislation was defective because it had cleared the two houses in different forms, and added that Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., ``knew full well this was an invalid bill.''

Republicans, citing an 1894 court precedent, say the measure is valid because top House and Senate leaders put their own signatures on the bill before it was sent to the White House.

full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5627819,00.html

[Mnemosyne]

1. .

[BR_Parkway]

2. The power of the Unitary Congressman now?

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. An 1894 court precedent

Maybe it was really a 1984 thing. :sarcasm:

Funny how the FISA law was sooooo yesterday, but an 1894 precedent...*sigh*

[bigtree]

4. that's a good catch. That 1894 law is so pre 9-11