Is this legal?

[mellicious]

This.

"The earmark was not in the final version of the bill that passed both the House and Senate. Got that? Somewhere after conference and after final passage by both chambers but before the President signed the bill, the earmark language was slipped into the text of the bill. It's pretty amazing and, from the experts we've talked to, pretty much unheard of for such a thing to happen."

I would like to see this pursued, just because it seems to me that it's the kind of legal sloppiness that has characterized this administration and government in general the last few years, and it seems to me that the only way to keep it from happening over and over is to root it out and bring it to light. Sounds like that's not going to be easy, though.

Comments

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

Holy cow.

[profrobert.livejournal.com]

What a neat legal issue! I'm not sure who has standing to challenge it in the courts, though. Years back, there was a case to strike a revenue bill because it did not originate in the House, as the Constitution requires. The Supreme Court held that it was a political question and therefore not justiciable (i.e., the challenge failed). Here, however it's not something that Congress papered over. This should be attackable, I'd think.

[mellificent.livejournal.com]

I was wondering whether somebody could take it to court. Who might conceivably have standing in this? That's one of the things I'm not really clear on.

[profrobert.livejournal.com]

Not sure (this isn't my area), but a congressperson might. I know that "taxpayer" suits are usually looked on with disfavor.