Texas Attorney General Biden’s $1.7 trillion spending measure is defeated by Ken Paxton; a federal court declares it unlawful.
The decision made on Tuesday by Judge Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas’ Lubbock Division allows for the possibility of future legal action to thwart Biden’s distribution of public monies.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
In 2022, while on a family vacation in St. Croix, Joe Biden signed the omnibus measure, which was airlifted to the island in time to fulfill a deadline of December 30. Among other controversial provisions, the package designated 45 billion for Ukraine.
These included the Electoral Count Act’s passing, 2.6 billion for investigations into the events of January 6, roughly 600 million for the Environmental Protection Agency, and 11 million specifically aimed at gun owners. Notably, financing for border security was absent from the bill—a major grievance for a large number of Republicans and Americans alike.
AG Paxton filed a lawsuit in early 2023 to contest the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, arguing that the House’s quorum was unconstitutional for passing the legislation when fewer than half of Congress was physically present.
“Texas filed this case in mid-February 2023 challenging parts of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023–a $1.7 trillion appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed by President Biden in December 2022. Texas claims to be injured by two unrelated provisions of the Act: (1) a $20 million allocation to DHS’s “Alternatives to Detention” case management pilot program, which uses less expensive and more humane tools like GPS to monitor noncitizens who would otherwise be unnecessarily detained; and (2) the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,” which newly requires covered employers–defined to include states as employers–to provide certain accommodations for pregnant employees. Although Texas seeks only to block these two provisions, its legal claim is that the Act is invalid because the House of Representatives allegedly did not have a quorum when it passed the Act (some members voted by proxy, which Texas argues was invalid),” Written by Litigation Tracker.
The action focused on the House’s allowance of proxy voting, which Paxton claimed went against more than 200 years of legislative precedent in accordance with the Quorum Clause of the Constitution.
>> Click Here To Continue Reading <<
One Comment
Leave a Reply