Earlier this year we told you that the budget reconciliation bill may violate the Constitution because, due to a clerical snafu, the two chambers did not sign identical versions of bill. On Friday, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the bill is, in fact, constitutional. BNA (sub. req'd): A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Aug. 11 rejected a legal challenge by Public Citizen contesting the validity of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--a five-year $38.8 billion spending cut bill signed by President Bush in February--even though a clerical mistake meant it had not passed both houses of Congress in the same form (Public Citizen v. Clerk,, D. D.C., No. 06-0523, 8/11/06). [...] The case stemmed from an apparent error by Senate clerk in December 2005, after the Senate had narrowly passed its version of the Deficit Reduction Act conference report. But because the Senate had rejected three small provisions on procedural grounds, the bill had to go back to the House, where another vote was held in early February. In the back-and-forth process a clerk accidentally changed a provision dealing with federal payments for durable medical equipment. The error resulted in the House and Senate approving slightly different versions of the bill, in what opponents say was a violation of the Constitution's requirement that a bill be approved by both houses in identical form before being presented to the president for his signature. The error publicly came to light the day President Bush signed the bill, Feb. 8, raising the ire of Capitol Hill Democrats. The bill had narrowly passed both chambers over intense Democratic opposition. In the Senate, Vice President Cheney gave the tie-breaking vote. Democrats argued that in addition to violating the Constitution, the bill would not have been approved if the durable medical equipment provision--valued at about $2 billion over five years--had been properly included.