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?
Excellent point!
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, If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournament [sic from online PDF source] prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
You appear to have a novel understanding of the English language. This paragraph lists three distinct specific instances where a bill must be "passed" by one house or the other (or both).
First, the initial passage. Second, on veto, in the originating house. Third, subsequent to veto and override in the originating house, in the non-originating house.
Then the phrase "But in all such Cases" enters the stadium, which clearly refers to the initial passage, and to the post-veto override alike, unless the definition of "all" has become merely "some".
From the language, it is clear to me that the recorded vote applies to initial passage just the same as override.
See post 24 for the analysis of the construction of this section.
The requirement for a recorded vote absolutely applies to the initial “pass”, which therefore specifies a minimum 50+ percent vote.
Thanks for the link. Seems like I’ve been reading a lot of CRS reports lately as all sorts of parliamentary questions are being raised by ObamaCare.
Also: Love your tagline!
If legal and operative, this Congress could deem anything Dear Jughead proposes to be law and in the best interest of the country. Congress could just go home and cash their paychecks.
By “Pass”, they mean the recorded vote of “Aye” or “Nay” next to each Members name during a recorded voting process.
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.
Well....here....
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…
Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re 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 didn’t?”
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.
Your interpretation makes a mockery of the language used by our Founders. “In all such Cases”, clearly restricts the Cases referred to. If the Founders intended that “In all such Cases” refer to all votes taken, they would have clearly stated that.
“Cases” and “votes” are two entirely different things.
Want more proof? Consider the many voice votes taken that do not have the Yeas and Nays recorded as required by the clause in question (”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”).
For your interpretation to stand, all voice votes are in violation of the Constitution.
You're leaving out the word "such". This is the critical operative word. It's drawing direct reference to votes taken and recorded for overriding presidential Vetos.
Throughout the history of the House, especially in the first half of its existence, plenty of legislation was passed in by voice vote only without individual votes being recorded. The House rules, not the Constitution require in the contemporary House, that a roll call vote is held for some specific kinds of legislation - namely revenue bills and the like. But, like any House rule, this can be amended, if only temporarily. Also, the Speaker is given tremendous latitude with respect to what rules are or are not enforced. As a practical matter, virtually all legislative votes are recorded today, but there's no Constitutional requirement to do so - just the votes to override a Presidential veto.
Without the racial issues present in Powell v. McCormick, the courts are virtually certain to duck any dispute about the internal mechanics of Congress citing the Political Question Doctrine. This is particularly so where the constitutional violation at issue is trivial. The average intelligence of the electorate is only slightly above average (voters are probably a bit smarter than adults generally), but very few voters are going to be fooled by the Slaughter rule. It is the scantiest of fig leaves. Whether the House deems the Senate bill passed or passes it directly the voters will hold them responsible for their actions. The constitutional violation of following the Slaughter rule has no practical consequences sufficient to justify any judicial involvement.
The Slaughter rule clearly shows that the current leadership of Congress has contempt for its constitutional responsibilities. That's an excellent stick to beat the Dems with as we head into the next election which is just as it should be. Politics rather than litigation provide the remedy for the Dems lawlessness here. The courts aren't going to touch it.
What next.....
.....The President merely saying or writing a proclamation stating he would sign a bill. Then the President doesn't actually sign it but it is considered Law?
Given the widespread affect this bill would have, akin to a Constitutional Amendment forcing people to buy health insurance, this must be challenged if "passed" on such flimsy grounds.
I think we are ON the slippery slope with no hope of stopping.
cut off the money and they screwed.
Pass means votes were cast. Thats the clear meaning. To argue otherwise is Clintonian and I am telling you this crap will tick off a lot of people . Right now - if the SC were to weigh in they would definitely rule that "pass" means votes were cast. However if Obama gets one or two new justices in there I am not so sure.
Article 1, Section 7
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law...
'All such Cases' refers clearly to 'Bills' generally, not just to bills vetoed by the President. For 'Cases' to mean that I:7 applies ONLY to veto overrides, one must make the argument that one procedure applies when a bill is being voted upon initially AND A DIFFERENT ONE APPLIES in the case of veto overrides. Curiously, this former mysterious procedure is not described by the Constitution, so by extension one might in the same vein reasonably (cough, choke...) make a 'valid' argument that 'original intent' here means, say, flipping a coin or drawing lots to determine the passage or failure of a bill. A more bogus argument would be difficult indeed to construct.
Also therefore, one would have to make the argument that the House and/or the Senate can, the Constitution notwithstanding, present a finished bill to the President without having to take a vote at all.
Let's see someone make EITHER of those arguments with a straight face!
If they pass the rule, they ARE passing the Senate bill. There’s nothing in the Constitution saying they can’t do it that way.
A different procedure DOES apply. That's what sec 7 is saying. A veto override requires a 2/3 majority. A regular bill? It doesn't say. It's left up to the house to make its own rules.
In any case, if they vote on the rule, they are passing the Senate bill. There will be a vote on the rule. I don't see anything in the Constitution forbidding this tactic.
And they will vote--on the rule. If they pass the rule, they pass the bill.
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.