• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Farm Bill Is Not a Farm Law

    As every school child knows, to become law, Art. I, § 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires a bill to go through the formal process of bicameral passage in Congress and presentment to the President. Should the President veto the legislation, then it may become law if it is “repassed by two thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives.” The word repassed is important to the current controversy, because the farm bill as currently considered by the House and Senate never passed. Rather, a different bill—a version which included Title III—passed, however that is not the bill which was presented to the President. Accordingly, because the bill that passed is not the bill that was presented to the President and returned to Congress with his veto, their subsequent vote to override the veto cannot meet the requirements of repassage.

    The fact that the bill contained much of the same material or the same bill number is not sufficient for repassage. It must be identical. This is particularly important in appropriations bills. As public choice literature demonstrates, appropriations bills are often consensus bills—legislation in which not only different parties, but different interest groups form deals in order to secure the passage of the larger legislation. Thus, a large appropriations bill like the farm bill might not even have passed at all if a significant section of the bill were not included. Those who cast their votes in Congress for the farm bill did so to pass a bill that included Title III, and that likely influenced their decision to vote for the bill at all. In other words, we have no way of knowing whether the incorrectly transmitted bill would have ever passed both houses of Congress as is (without Title III), because the votes that were tallied were not for such a bill.

    Simply offering to pass a new bill for Title III is also insufficient. Such action still fails to take into account that the other sections of the bill never secured initial passage of both houses and presentment to the President. Thus, Title III might become law based upon a subsequent bill (provided that it goes through the proper process), but that does not cure the defects of the rest of the farm bill.

    Given these constitutional failings, the President should direct his agencies, including USDA and the Treasury, to release no monies and take no action based upon the farm bill, and to wait for Congress to pass a farm law. While Congress will no doubt complain about the short time remaining to accomplish this task, they may be able to address the issue in the interim with a supplemental appropriation. If they can’t, then they should take a lesson from the rest of the country: Millions of Americans are looking forward to a long, holiday weekend. But most workers would not be able to take that time off if they botched an important task that had a deadline before their vacation. They would need to stay at work, and perhaps forego part of their vacation, to finish their task. Why should we expect less from Congress?

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to The Farm Bill Is Not a Farm Law

    1. Pingback: Kicking Over My Traces: Why the Farm Bill Isn’t Law

    2. Alan Tarrab, Florida says:

      That´s all well and good, but there´s the slight problem of Field v. Clark. Not to worry, I think the cases can be distinguished, but the president must act now. First of all, that case appears to have been a true clerical error, whereas in this case, the senate acted knowing that the bill was constitutionally infirm. Also, that case talks about deference to the branches that enact laws, and here there is a clash between them. That case also talks about the house journals not being reliable evidence, but in the case of a veto override, the journals with the names of the people who voted for and against the bill are specifically necessary to prove two thirds, otherwise the speaker of the house could certify a two-thirds majority without that being the case. Lastly the court mentioned as rationale for its decision the confusion it would cause if an act deposited with the secretary of state as a law is not actually law. So the president must act now by making it clear that the bill is not law and not let it appear to be law through any of the formalities of enactment. That is, he should order the public printer not to issue a public law number and order the archivist not to receive the enrolled bill from the Congress. The president must act with with diligence, perh

    3. Alan Tarrab, Florida says:

      I hit the wrong key, but like I was saying, the president must issue those orders, perhaps accompanied by an opinion by the attorney general hitting the key points I mentioned concerning the differences between this case and the supreme court precedent. Time is of the essence. If anybody knows anyone in the White House, pass this message along, quickly. We must always be steadfast in our protection of constitutional government.

    4. Syd, Chicago says:

      What country's constitution you using? I love your quote marks and your declaration about the importance of the word "repassed." It'd be even more powerful if the Constitution actually used the word.

    5. Syd, Chicago says:

      Just figured out where you were looking. The language you quote is in the outdated, unused clause 3 of section 7 of Title I of the Constitution. It doesn't apply to bills. You need to read clause 2 and then try your analysis again.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.