NOTE: The following is Attorney Zeigler's notice, not an article by ElderLawAnswers.
Your help is needed to declare the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 unconstitutional and return to the prior law.
A lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Mobile, Alabama, by elder law attorney Jim Zeigler. He alleges that different versions of the bill passed the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. The version signed into law by the President Feb. 8 never passed the House.
Article I section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the same bill pass both houses and be signed by the President.
If Zeigler is successful, the DRA will be declared a nullity, not having been enacted in accordance with constitutional requirements. The prior law would be automatically resurrected. The harsh new rules on Medicaid, Medicare, student loans and other programs would return to pre-Feb. 8 rules.
Your help is needed now to raise the estimated $300,000 needed to fight this fight.
- We need an investigator to prove congressional leaders knew about the constitutional flaw in mid-January and chose to ignore the constitution and proceed to a House vote Feb. 1.
- We need a team of top-notch constitutional lawyers.
- We need to depose the senate clerk who caused this, Speaker Hastert and staff, and president pro tem Sen. Ted Stevens and staff.
- We need to build the record for appellate review. This case is going up.
This exact situation has not occurred. We are plowing some new ground.
Please send your check payable to 'Jim Zeigler, Attorney' to:
Jim Zeigler, Attorney
1301 Azalea Road
Mobile, Alabama 36693
In the blank 'For___________,' you may indicate: 'For DRA Litigation.' 100% of funds will be used for that purpose.
While any amount you send will be helpful, we suggest the following:
- ACTIVE MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY PRACTITIONERS: $1,000
- OTHER ATTORNEYS, FINANCIAL ADVISORS, CPAs, AND PROFESSIONALS: $500
- PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN MAKING TRANSFERS UNDER OLD MEDICAID RULES: $1,000
- OTHER AFFECTED PERSONS: $250
- AFFECTED BUSINESSES AND ASSOCIATIONS: $5,000 to $10,000
Include your e-mail address with your check, and we will keep you updated on progress of the litigation.
SEND TO OTHERS. In addition to quickly mailing your own check, you can help further by e-mailing, faxing or mailing this letter to all affected persons, businesses and associations. You know others who need this new law nullified. Contributions from your contacts could be even more helpful than your personal check. Please quickly send this appeal to all affected.
TAX DEDUCTION. Check with your tax preparer about deductibility. Schedule C of form 1040 allows 'professional fees' related to your business to be deducted as a business expense.
WHAT TO DO. Mail your own check today. Then quickly send this letter to all affected persons, businesses and associations. Thanks.
Additional information and the actual lawsuit are online at www.JimZeigler.com
Here are comments about the Zeigler lawsuit:
"I give credit to Jim Zeigler for filing the lawsuit," said Bernard Krooks, past president of National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. "I think he absolutely does have standing as somebody who represents clients who are seniors. He's put in a position of not knowing whether he should use pre- or post-DRA law, so I do hope the court addresses the issue and listens to the arguments on the merits so we can get a resolution of it."
"I know the speaker knew this was an invalid bill and still gave the go-ahead to send it to the President,'' Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, said.
"That bill ... is actually not a properly enacted law," said Michael Gerhardt, a professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina School of Law. "It wouldn't surprise me if a court struck it down. That bill was not approved by the House."
"I don't know that we've had a circumstance where the president may be signing a bill that one of the chambers didn't actually approve," said Gerhardt. "That's the unique wrinkle here."
"Each house has to pass the whole law and the same law," said Alan Morrison, senior lecturer in law at Stanford University Law School. "This is a case where the Constitution is very clear."
Morrison was the lead attorney in the case to overturn the 1996 line item veto law, which was decided on the same elementary constitutional concept: that a law must pass the House and Senate in the same form and once signed by the president can only be changed by another law approved by all three parties.
Morrison said courts would take a dim view of the idea that it is OK for the Speaker of the House '” who along with the Senate's President Pro Tempore signed the official copies of bills sent to the president '” to endorse a bill that's different from what the House voted on. That could set a precedent that could be abused.
"It's not the mischief in this case that would cause the (Supreme) Court to be worried," Morrison said. "It's the next case or the case after that where there isn't a clerical mistake but there's an effort to deceive or change the result."
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
