If a law is made under fraudulent circumstances, is it a law? I realize that this is ridiculously vague, and I just happen to have an example in mind — ObamaCare. It is my understanding that (let me be brief) the Slaughter rule
was not invoked because budget-neutral reconciliation offered a way to pass the bill piecemeal, but only with the addition of the CLASS Act. Well, the CLASS Act fell away long ago, and nobody was suroprised–it was always doomed to fail, an accounting trick designed to make the bill eligible for reconciliation rather than committee work on new bills. Or something.
I realize that the CBO sliding window is probably not worth shooting at for now, at least ion this context. But the use of reconciliation after so obvious a ruse of eligibility seems to me to cry out for remedy. Would a judge anywhere have a leg to stand on to say that the law is invalid because (despite the accession of Congress at the time) the ex-post facto discovery of the farcical accounting in the CLASS Act puts the event of its passage in a new light?
I say yes, that is, ObamaCare is already not a valid law. The Supreme Court is now struggling over the law’s epitaph, not its fate.