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.
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 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.