Posted on 03/14/2010 8:03:31 AM PDT by C19fan
Any legal eagles freepers know if the Slaughter is unconstitutional? Common sense would say yes but I have read this has been used before; specifically Gephardt used a similiar technique so his buddies would avoid having to have a direct vote to raise the debt ceiling. Since the House has to approve the rule would that be considered as equivalent to an actual vote on the bill?
yes.
Is Slaughter Rule Unconstitutional?...
Sounds like it is not, but if asked a year or so ago if having a President whose father was not a citizen was unconstitutional, I would have said the same thing.
It is what ever the powers that be want it to be.
It appears to be constitutional to me. The GOP have used similar tactics in the past. I’ve yet to see anything in the Constitution to the contrary.
check Mark Levin site and show transcripts. He is pretty explicit it is not and that Slaughter should be impeached.
Levin is a Consitution legal expert. Heads a legal foundation, I believe.
Completely unconstitutional, and not in a academic sense...it’s blatant and should she proceed with this act, she should be thrown in prison.
This is tantamount to what Zalaya was trying to do in Honduras (in the sense that it is a bald-faced, illegal power grab by the government).
What part of the Constitution is being violated?
The Supreme Court tends to give the legislative branch broad leeway in setting their own rules. For instance they have thrown out challenges to the filibuster in the past for that reason. But, in this case they may have to step in. If this is allowed it would create a very dangerous precedent, it’s not a very big step to see congressional leaders in the future “deeming” laws past that they did not have the votes for and you would essentially be reducing the legislative branch to a one man or woman dictatorship with the other members reduced to little more than an advisory role.
You are 100% incorrect Huck. This proposal violates requisite processes where bills need to be voted on and approved. Slaughter’s scheme would pass a rule that states that the bill was voted on and passed, when in fact it was not voted on or passed.
This is a 2 prong attack by the leftists. First is gives them a (illigitimate) basis for moving the bill forward to the president for his signature. Second, it gives these maggots cover so that they can go back to thier districts and claim that they did not vote for the bill.
These people are evil and are the enemies of America and do not belong in our government. November can’t get here soon enough!
I believe it’s somewhere in Article I, Section 7.
The part of Article 1 Section 7 which states, in painstaking detail, the actual logistical process on how a Bill becomes a Law. Each Bill will pass both chambers. By “Pass”, they mean the recorded vote of “Aye” or “Nay” next to each Members name during a recorded voting process. At which time, once all of those details are complete, it becomes a law with the President's signature.
The question is - is a Bill that has no recorded vote actually a “law” to be upheld? If they do not record a vote on the Senate Health Care Bill (and the actual Bill must be voted on - not have the Senate Bill rolled into another Bill, such as Rules Bill). Once they skip one of these steps which is specifically spelled out in the Constitution in order for a Bill to be come law, there seems to be a real question whether anyone needs to observe something like that as a “Law”. In fact, US Attorneys are duty bound to reject it by virtue of the fact it is NOT a law, according to the Law of the Land.
I hate to say it, but I think you are right.
Conservatives, including Mark Levin, are quoting Article I, Section VII, Clause II, but that portion refers to votes over-riding presidential vetoes, not votes for passage of legislation. (It begins with, "But in all such Cases . . . ", meaning it only refers to specific cases, not all cases. The description of the cases it refers to precedes that clause - voting to over-ride a presidential veto.)
Even so, if the Dims adopt that rule, it will open up a thermonuclear war between the parties, and will probably produce Republican majorities in both houses in November. IMO.
See #16.
Where do you get that? It's not there. I simply says:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;" It doesn't specify how it gets passed. It's not in the text.
It’s only unconstitutional according to the Constitution. But as dems pay no attention to the document, they’ll have no problem.
That's how I read it. Levin probably knows better. This is just politics, where the facts are secondary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.