Stahl, 792 F.2d at 1440-41 (same); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir.1986) (same). Furthermore, the Courts of Appeals have consistently invoked Marshall Field in refusing to conduct other inquiries “into the internal governance of Congress.” Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561, 571 (9th Cir.1989); see, e.g., United States v. Campbell, No. 06-3418, 221 Fed.Appx. 459, 2007 WL 1028785, at *1 (7th Cir. Apr.3, 2007) (unpublished order) (“Campbell proposes to argue that 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which gives district judges jurisdiction to hear criminal prosecutions, has no legal effect because the House and Senate did not vote on it in the same session of Congress .... The enrolled bill rule prevents looking behind laws in th[at] way .... ”); Mester Mfg., 879 F.2d at 570-71 (<HOLDING>); Gibson v. Anderson, 131 F. 39, 42-43 (9th
holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury holding it constitutional for congress to allocate jurisdiction question to the judge holding that where congress has directed the agency to issue a rule without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule  congress has amended the law and does not offend the constitution holding that in the absence of express constitutional direction the courts must defer to the reasonable procedures congress has ordained for its internal business where an employer asserted that the immigration reform and control act of 1986 is entirely null and void as unconstitutionally passed  because congress has no constitutional authority to present a bill after adjournment sine die holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect