Title 18 Quorum
|
In the BOP Letter below, a key phrase was given by Director Harley Lappin that we need to focus on entirely. The focus must be taken off whether the two houses agreed on the language or passage of the bill. That argument is a loser. The winning argument is this:
The vote on May 12th, 1947 was to Amend H.R. 3190 Bill in the House (See 93 Cong.Rec. 5049), therefore, on May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the hall of the House was required to be entered on the Journal in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 voice vote to be legal.
What this is really stating is this. The Courts in the Jerdine cases and their progenies have argued that both the House and the Senate passed the Bill and that the language and time difference between them is irrelevant. What nails them is the statement in the 2nd paragraph above. The Amended H.R. 3190 Bill failed to pass and with an unconstitutional seated Quorum. Everything else in the Courts eyes passed Constitutionally. The hurtle that the Courts cannot get by is the 38 to 6 vote. That is the crucifier. This needs to be front and center in the Class Action Suit as well as the The Federal Registry Act violations where there does not exist the underlying supporting Federal Code of Regulations to support the statutes which vitiates such law. California Banker’s Assoc. v Schultz, 416 US 21; 38, United States v. Mersky, 361 US 431, and Hotch. v. United States, 212 F.2d 280, 283.
Put paragraphs 2 & 3 up front and center in the Class Action and everything else is in support of it. I believe this centers the whole issue. Let me know your thoughts.
Harley G. Lappin" <harley.lappin@usdoj.gov> Page 1 of 1
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:17 PM
Attention all Department Heads, there has been a large volume of inmate Requests for Administrative Remedies questioning the validity of the Bureau's authority to hold or classify them under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4081, et seq., (1948). On the claim that Public Law 80-772 was never passed or signed in the presence of a Quorum or Majority of both Houses of Congress as required by Article I, § 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Although most courts have, thusfar, relied on Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649(1892) to avoid ruling on the merits of these claims, however, there have been some which have stated that they were not bound by the Field case, but those cases did not involve any Quorum Clause challenge. So out of an abundance of caution, I contacted the Office of Legal, Counsel, the National Archives and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to learn that there is
no record of any quorum being present during the May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3190 Bill in the House (See 93 Cong.Rec. 5049), and the record is not clear as to whether there was any Senate vote on the H.R. 3190 Bill during any session of the 80th Congress. There is only one Supreme Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid the Journals of both Houses must show that it was passed in the presence of a Quorum. See United States v. Ballin, Joseph & Co., 144 U.S. 1, 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 vote was a 'voice vote,' but the Parliamentarian of the House states that a voice vote is only valid when the Journal shows that a quorum is present and that it's unlawful for the Speaker of the House to sign any enrolled bill in the absence of a quorum. On May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the hall of the House was required to be entered on the Journal in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 voice vote to be legal. It appears that the 1909 version of the Federal Criminal Code has never been repealed. Therefore, in essence, our only true authority is derived from the 1948 predecessor to Public Law 80-772. "Although adjudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought to be beyond the jurisdiction of federal administrative agencies, this rule is not mandatory," according to the Supreme Court in the case of Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 215 (1994). Therefore, the Bureau under the advise of the Legal Counsel feels that it is in the best interest of public safety to continue addressing all of these Administrative Remedy Requests by stating that only the Congress or courts can repeal or declare a federal statute unconstitutional.