Skip to comments.Welcome to Martial Law: House Dems Will Rule They Voted on Health Care Without Actually Voting On It
Posted on 03/14/2010 8:32:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Washington Examiner reports that House Democrats appear poised to adopt a rule that would pass the Senate health care bill without actually voting on it.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was originally reported by the National Journals Congress Daily. Mark Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate refutation of the peoples will.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House deems the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
The Greatest Assault on the Constitution In Your Lifetime
Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, Theyre going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didnt?
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively
According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.
Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
It would be government by fiat meaning there would be no law the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us at the brink. At the brink.
This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitutions words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who arent sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or arent sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as youll ever get So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race with scores of others to the courthouse to stop this.
I cant think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!
Its not only absurd on its face that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on thats not only absurd on its face, its blatantly unconstitutional!
Levin: I wanted to bring additional firepower on this subject, my buddy Arthur Fergenson, who is a Constitutional expert and who has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, including Buckley vs. Valeo
What do you make of this unbelievable that theyre even talking about, this chairman of the Rules Committee acting as if members of the House voted on something when they didnt actually vote on it?
Fergenson: Its preposterous. Its ludicrous. But its also dangerous. Its dangerous because, first, because [the U.S. Constitution's] Article I Section VII says every bill and it capitalized bill it is common sense that the bill is the same item, it cant be multiple bills, it cant be mashups of bills. And, in fact, in 1986, Gene Gressman, no conservative, and one of the experts the expert on Supreme Court practice was writing an article that was dealing with a less problematic attempt to get around this section of the Constitution [Ed: the line-item veto] and he wrote, By long usage and plain meaning, Bill means any singular and entire piece of legislation in the form it was approved by the two houses.
the bills have to be revoted until they are identical. Both chambers have to vote on the bill.
If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House and there were to be a bill presented to the President for his signature, that was a bill that had not been voted on identically by the two Houses of Congress that bill would be a nullity. It is not law. That is chaos.
I cannot recall any circumstance in which that has happened.
What we have here is a measure, that if Obama signed it, would immediately affect taxation, it would change rules of practice in the insurance industry, it would regulate 17% of the nations economy, and it would be done without any legal basis whatsoever!
Fergenson: Its like, the closest I can think of is martial law! The President would have no authority there would be no law! Its not like it would be constitutional or not. There would be. No. Law.
Levin: What do you make of people who sit around and even think of things like this? To me, they are absolutely unfit to even be in high office!
Fergenson: Youre right, Mark. And I would go back to what caused Gressman to write this he was asked for his comments by the Senate because the Senate was trying to do the equivalent of a line-item veto. And, in 1986, you were in the Justice Department under Attorney General Meese there was a proposal to take a bill and divide it into little pieces and.. then the President would sign each one or veto each one. That was unconstitutional. A Senate Rules Committee reported it unfavorably.
Levin: You know whats interesting about this Attorney General Ed Meese considered it unconstitutional even though President Reagan had wanted a line-item veto. And President Reagan agreed that it was unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution
Speaking for myself, I would tell the people who listen to this program that you are under absolutely no obligation to comply with it [this health care bill] because it is not, in fact, law. Do you agree with me?
Fergenson: I agree with you. I believe it would be tested by the Supreme Court. I believe that, under these circumstances, chaos would reign. There is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. The courts are empowered to determine whether its unconstitutional its not a law.
Under this scenario, the various arms of the federal government will be acting under a law that does not exist.
I want to know where are the Republicans. They should be on every cable news show shouting this to the top of the roof.
Welcome to Civil War II and the Great Purge of the Domestic Enemies of America.
If one party does it, then it opens up the door to the other party doing it.
I don’t understand what is happening to the ideals that our country once stood for.
I don’t know what will need to happen to change things for the better.
I am sorry that I was a part of the generation of Americans that let this slip away so that my children will never know the true satisfaction of living in the finest democracy known to man.
I think We The People can call this Treason without any doubts whatsoever. Our Constitution has been used as toilet paper by this Congress.
Secession is the only way. One of the states has to go first. I think others will follow. And any subsequent invasion of such free states by federal forces ought to be met with friendly state citizens who smile and who then shoot the federales as soon as their backs are turned.
She wants to play hardball "I'm the dictator" fuzzball frolics she will be taught a lesson.
Where is the Supreme Court when our Constitution has just been used to wipe the rectums of this Congress?
It’s my understanding that the parlimentarian was called to the WH this evening. Then, I heard on a radio show around 6:30pm MST that the same parlimentarian had ruled against the dems. Can anybody elaborate?
The Slaughter House Rule may be making history.
We’re in Orwell’s 1984 in so many ways. Here we see Congress on the verge of voting for a bill but not voting for it; approving it but not actually having a vote, yet it’s still approved. This is Orwellian.
Then Obama would send the Air Force to nuke your entire city.
Some serious escalation could follow!
Lock and Load!
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
As I understand things, the Supreme Court, or federal courts in general, don’t get involved unless someone files a lawsuit. Can anybody confirm that? In that case, we might have to wait for this crap to pass before a lawsuit can be filed.
The case of Bush vs. Gore in 2000 was based on lawsuits filed in federal courts by Gore and his boys over the election count procedures. Contrary to what some liberals tell us about that case, the Supremes didn’t just decide one day to decide how to conduct vote counts in elections.
Paging Claire Wolfe, paging Claire Wolfe...please pick up the white courtesy phone for an important question.
It is wrong to say the MSM has done nothing.
The MSM, beginning with Jim Lehrer, has pushed Obama
to assault, crack heads, and destroy anyone who
dares demand the usurpers obey the US Constitution
or who dares disagree with the imposition of Obamacare.
What Civil War? Unless people like you and I actually get up off our behinds, grab a gun, and organize into combat units to fight the federal government... there is no civil war.
Are you really grabbing your gun right now?
Now, if that happens, the federals will use force in response. But the force ought to be initiated by the federals. The (peaceful) movement toward freedom should be initiated by the state.
If I see an invading army, I'll do my part. But initiating violence against the federales is not a good strategy.
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.