I'm John Batchewitt, Professor Joseph Postel, writing at Civitas Outlook about a decision

I had never read about before.

But then again, I didn't enjoy the education of a law student or a professor reading today,

Joseph.

So forgive me for being completely amazed by this decision that

Congress would let it go forward. Now, you have corrective suggestions. You tell me that the

majority opinion endorsing Chata, that is, to reject the ability of Congress to veto anything,

unless both houses of Congress, bicameralism, and unless presentment, which means the ability of Congress to veto anything, unless both houses of Congress, by cameraism,

and unless presentment, which means the signature of the president, that's the only time

Congress can get in the way.

That is both a misinterpretation and there's an opening.

To reverse Chata, is that the ambition here, reverse Chata.

So let's begin with what's wrong with Chata?

What did the court in the 1980s misunderstand?

The court in the Chata case engaged in what I call selective formalism.

That is, it was right about a matter of original meaning of the Constitution.

And the thing that it got right was anytime Congress wants to pass a law, it has to go through

Article 1, Section 7, which means both houses of Congress have to pass the law, and the

president has to sign it.

And that's something we all learn in sort of our, you know, elementary and high school civics

classes that Congress can't make law unless both houses pass the bill and the president

signs it. The court was right about that. What the court was wrong about was the question of

...