Vik Amar has this thoughtful column on recent controversy over whether someone can successfully challenge the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 as not “law” because the House and Senate did not pass identical versions of it. Concludes Amar: “The bottom line, though, is that the courts – even the lower courts – should not decline to entertain the controversy altogether. Nothing in constitutional doctrine or common sense requires complete abstention here. The courts have jurisdiction, and they ought to exercise it.”