Federal Judge Rules Pelosi’s ‘Final Major Achievement’ as Speaker Is Unconstitutional
In a blight on Nancy Pelosi’s legacy, a federal judge has ruled that the former House speaker’s celebrated “final major achievement” was unconstitutional.
The judge’s remarks regarded the December 2022 Pelosi-led House pushing through a $1.7 trillion federal budget on the eve of losing power following the midterm elections.
The passage of the massive spending bill, a pillar of President Joe Biden’s spending plan, was hailed at the time by CNBC as “the final major achievement” of Pelosi’s term as speaker of the House.”
According to Reuters, U.S. District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, ruled that then-House Speaker Pelosi violated the Constitution by allowing members to vote on the spending bill via proxy.
The Constitution forbids the practice. The bill passed 225-201.
The legitimacy of the bill was challenged by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Hendrix agreed with Texas’ request to block part of the bill, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, from being enforced in Texas.
Hendrix ruled the Department of Justice and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission could not order a state to enforce a law that was incorporated into a bill that originated unconstitutionally.
Questioning the motive and judgment associated with approving the bill, the Texas attorney general said:
“Congress acted egregiously by passing the largest spending bill in U.S. history with fewer than half the members of the House bothering to do their jobs, show up, and vote in person.” Paxton then declared the court had rendered “a major victory in defense of the United States Constitution.”
Blasting the former House speaker, Paxton said: “Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution. This was a stunning violation of the rule of law. I am relieved the Court upheld the Constitution.”
Hendrix was critical of the former speaker as well, writing in his 120-page opinion:
“For over 235 years, Congress understood the Constitution’s Quorum Clause to require a majority of members of the House or Senate to be physically present to constitute the necessary quorum to pass legislation.
“This rule prevents a minority of members from passing legislation that affects the entire nation,” he wrote.
“But despite the Constitution’s text and centuries of consistent practice, the House in 2020 created a rule that permitted non-present members to be included in the quorum count and vote by proxy,” he wrote, adding, “Pursuant to that novel rule, the House passed a new law included within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, and that particular provision affects Texas.
“Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law. … The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.
“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.”
Leave a Comment