Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.i don't know about that "willful violation of the constitution" bit. if the president signs something that didn't pass both houses of congress, it's not illegal. it just means that what he signed is not a statute. the president probably signs all kinds of things that aren't passed by both houses of congress, e.g. executive orders, letters to his mother, his intern's casts when they break their arms, the wall in the whitehouse bathroom stall. even though he's president, he's still allowed to sign stuff that doesn't pass congress. they just aren't enforceable as statutes.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
if the president signs a bill that he supports after he is told that it has not passed both houses of congress, he's just being stupid. it virtually guarantees a court challenge, and will probably mean that whatever the president wants to happen never will. in this case, if senator waxman is right, whoever doesn't like any part of the budget bill now has a good way to stop it.
