The Senate returns at 10 a.m. to pass H.R. 6080, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for border security. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Reporting from Washington — A $600-million bill to beef up border security should have been on its way to President Obama for signature after the House approved it Tuesday, but instead it has been derailed by a procedural glitch that requires a do-over by the Senate — which has adjourned until September.

The technical misstep embarrassed congressional leaders and put the brakes on quick approval of funding for Obama’s plan to deploy another 1,500 Border Patrol and other law enforcement personnel along the border with Mexico…[snip]

Unanimous approval by the House on Tuesday seemed to be the last step for the bill — until it was discovered that the Senate, which approved the measure last week, had unwittingly violated a constitutional requirement that all spending bills originate in the House.

Procedural glitch? Technical misstep? We call it Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution:

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Now if we could just get Congress to stop abdicating its policymaking role to the Executive Branch.

In any case, here’s a good project, reading the U.S. Constitution with other folks on September 18, this year’s commemoration of Constitution Day. From WeReadtheConstitution.com:

 WeReadTheConstitution.com was formed in order to promote the reading of the Constitution in its entirety by as many Americans as possible. The Tea Party movement has stimulated a widespread interest in our founding documents, principles and ideals. We’re organizing a nationwide series of local events celebrating the United States Constitution on September 18, 2010. Across the United States ordinary citizens will be hosting or attending local gatherings at public places and backyard barbecues where they will read aloud the entire text of the United States Constitution. It is a profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was the first attorney general out of the box this morning to announce litigation against the health care bill President Obama plans to sign into law. Cuccinelli’s argument is a straightforward one challenging the constitutionality of an individual mandate. Excerpt from Cuchinelli’s statement:

With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce. We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.

Virginia is in a unique situation that allows it the standing to file such a suit since Virginia is the only state so far to pass a law protecting its citizens from a government-imposed mandate to buy health insurance. The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia. Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.

Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.

Washington Post, March 11, “Va. assembly approves bill to bar health-insurance mandate”
Heritage Foundation, Dec. 9, 2009, “The Individual Mandate in Obamacare is Unconstitutional“