This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal court has ruled that, all the while Democrats were spouting claims over recent years that it is President Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans that are a threat to democracy, they were the ones violating the Constitution.

The ruling came in a court victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who had challenged some of the provisions in Joe Biden's massive $1.7 trillion federal omnibus bill from 2022 that affected the Lone Star State.

The court ruling was that Democrats, led by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deliberately violated the Constitution in adopting the spending spree when there was no quorum in the House.

Pelosi, in pursuit of her political agenda, had adopted a plan to let House members vote from long distance during COVID, calling it a proxy vote, something the court said the Constitution doesn't allow.

A report from Just the News explained Paxton charged, "Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution. This was a stunning violation of the rule of law."

Joe Biden signed what then was styled as the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 in December of 2022.

Just the News explained, "The measure effectively set the federal budget for the year by wrapping the 12 annual appropriations bills into a single piece of legislation."

However, Paxton challenged the Democrat party agenda in court, charging that the House approval was unconstitutional because fewer than half of the chamber's members were physically present to vote.

That meant the House, under Pelosi's management, did not have enough members in the chamber to constitutionally vote on the program.

'Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law. In response, the defendants claim, among other things, that this court has no power to address the issue because it cannot look to extrinsic evidence to question whether a bill became law," said the ruling from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division.

"But because the court is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution—rather than second-guessing a vote count—the court disagrees. The court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause."

The report cites the Constitution itself, which states, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which worked with Paxton on the court filings, said, "The court correctly concluded that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution because a majority of House members was not physically present when the $1.7 trillion spending bill was passed. Proxy voting is unconstitutional."

The Tampa Free Press reported the specific issue involved the enforcement of "a law about pregnant women in the workplace."

The judge who issued the ruling is Judge James Wesley Hendrix.

Hendrix noted, "Although the court finds that the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act violated the Constitution, Texas does not seek an injunction of—and the court does not enjoin—the entire Act.

"Rather, the court enjoins only the application of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against Texas. The relief granted here is limited to abating the injury that Texas has proven will occur."

The judge pointed out, "Based on the Quorum Clause’s text, original public meaning, and historical practice, the court concludes that the Quorum Clause bars the creation of a quorum by including non-present members participating by proxy. Supreme Court precedent has long held that the Quorum Clause requires presence, and the Clause’s text distinguishes those absent members from the quorum and provides a mechanism for obtaining a physical quorum by compelling absent members to attend. This power to compel attendance makes little sense divorced from physical presence."