Vanity: Is Slaughter Rule Unconstitutional?

“Let’s see someone make EITHER of those arguments with a straight face!”

I’m guessing you missed the Gibbs interview this morning.

41 posted on 03/14/2010 10:05:26 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion

“In any case, if they vote on the rule, they are passing the Senate bill.”

Yes, but they will probably deny it. They’ll say they voted for the rule and they’ve got nothing to do with Obamacare.

42 posted on 03/14/2010 10:14:55 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion

- it says “Every Bill which shall pass ...”. The Bill itself has to pass. They can try this crap but it they do the Republicans would be wise to challenge it. They would have to find someone with standing to do so and it would take years. So the end result is we are screwed

43 posted on 03/14/2010 10:25:56 AM PDT by plain talk

Every Bill which shall pass

But it doesn't specify HOW a bill passes the House. It specifies how to veto a bill, but says nothing about how the house passes a bill.

44 posted on 03/14/2010 10:27:45 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)

An obscure view that contravenes 221 years of prior Constitutional procedure. There is exactly zero chance that the Framers' intent was to create a legislature that could enact laws without a vote of said legislature.

Your argument, and Slaughter's, is specifically that the legislature can in fact do this. In which case, what the devil is the point of having a legislature? Just pass laws by decree...which is precisely what Slaughter et al. intend by this 'procedure'.

Just don't call this pastiche 'American' or 'Constitutional'.

45 posted on 03/14/2010 10:31:39 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama? A phony and a prick, ergo a dildo.)

To: BarnacleCenturion

I did. I rarely listen to Jar-Jar Gibbs, not even for comic relief.

46 posted on 03/14/2010 10:32:36 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama? A phony and a prick, ergo a dildo.)

To: Huck; silverleaf

IIRC your example is not the same as the Slaughter Rule because it did not send that Bill to the POTUS for signature into Law.

47 posted on 03/14/2010 10:36:02 AM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (BHO's version of "The Great Leap Forward" into the government controlling your healthcare)

ART I Sec 5 Paragraph 2, Clause 1: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”.

Also, see #30 and comment on the 3rd and 4th paragraphs concerning voice votes please.

48 posted on 03/14/2010 10:38:39 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if people follow. Otherwise, you just wandered off.)

“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.”

They can’t pass it w/o voting for it. Period.

49 posted on 03/14/2010 10:43:40 AM PDT by Constitutional Patriot (Socialism is the cancer of humanity.)

To: savedbygrace

Do you mean to imply that either House may pass rules for its proceedings that violate other portions of the Constitution? I think not.

Voice votes, according to the Regress' own rules, are subject to a motion for the division of the assembly, i.e. a roll call, which motion can be made by any Member at any point and cannot be ruled out of order. The unfortunate fact is that the get-along, go-along mentality present in the Regress has historically inhibited calls for division of the assembly. Voice voting has also, one might note, been subject to HUGE abuses, most recently in Murtha's committee, but (in)famously also during the Speakerships of Tip O'Neill and Sam Rayburn.

50 posted on 03/14/2010 10:57:20 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama? A phony and a prick, ergo a dildo.)

There is exactly zero chance that the Framers' intent was to create a legislature that could enact laws without a vote of said legislature.

Intent is irrelevant. All that matters is the plain meaning of the text. All it says is a bill must pass both houses. It doesn't provide any specific rules about how they do it. It's left up to each house.

This is underlined by the fact that in certain cases, such as overriding vetos, they DO specify certain rules (2/3rds majority, etc).

Your argument, and Slaughter's, is specifically that the legislature can in fact do this. In which case, what the devil is the point of having a legislature? Just pass laws by decree.

If they vote on the rule, they vote on the bill.

51 posted on 03/14/2010 11:25:17 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)

To: Constitutional Patriot

If they vote on the rule, they ARE voting on the bill. A Yea on the rule deems the bill as passed, a vote NAY deems it not passed.

52 posted on 03/14/2010 11:25:49 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)

IMHO, this is the Republican Party's last chance to show some courage and label this sleazy Democratic tactic for what it is: Tyranny. If nothing else, clearly at least the Spirit of the Constitution will have been egregiously violated.

If the Dems do this, the result should be all-out War: political, legal, social. Massive acts of civil disobedience should be expected and encouraged.

Anything less than furious and total opposition to this Socialist Tyranny will doom both the Republic and the GOP, IMHO.

Such an act by the Democrats should be characterized as exactly what it is: a severe Constitutional crisis.

I expect a unified GOP to show ongoing, unabated outrage and strident opposition to this arrogant Administration and the Democratic Party.

The GOP, from top to bottom, should effectively say "Of course you know this means War!" And they should mean it.

53 posted on 03/14/2010 11:44:12 AM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")

Defeat Obamacare call list: List now contains the new MAYBES culled from FR posts. Be sure to call KNOWN RINOS too.

KEEP THE CALLS UP! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE

Code Red” - House Target List on Health Care

The National Republican Congressional Committee has published a target list on health care. In addition to continuing to contact the five Tennessee Democrat Congressmen, you can go http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/94697.aspx to contact some of these targets. Much of the talk following Obama’s announcement has focused on how to defeat this second bill through reconciliation, but that is misleading because the first step to defeating Obamacare is not by concentrating on defeating the “fixer” bill but by defeating the Senate bill in the House when it goes to the floor for an up-or-down vote on Thursday, March 18th.

Rep. Lincoln Davis 202-225-6831 Columbia office: 931-490-8699
Rep. Jim Cooper 202-225-4311 Nashville office: 615-736-5295
Rep. Bart Gordon 202-225-4231 Murfreesboro office: 615-896-1986
John Tanner (202) 225-4714, Union City, (731) 885-7070, Jackson Phone: (731) 423-4848, Millington (901) 873-5690 TN (MAYBE)
Rep. Steve Cohen 202-225-3265 Memphis office: 901-544-4131
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District
Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 MI 7th District
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District
James Matheson Toll-Free Number 1 (877) 677-9743 (202) 225-3011Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District
Bart Stupak (202) 225 4735 MI (MAYBE)
Brian Baird (202) 225-3536, Vancouver, (360) 695-6292. Olympia, (360) 352-9768, (MAYBE)
senator mark begich (202) 224-3004 toll free. (877) 501 - 6275 just became a MAYBE
Jason Altmire 202-225-2565, Aliquippa, 724-378-0928,
Natrona Heights, 724-226-1304 (MAYBE)

On the Bubble (Major developments from the “yes” and “no” columns in the House)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467046/posts

Congressional Dems on Twitter
http://www.arrghpaine.com/congressional-dems-on-twitter

And here are toll-free numbers we can use to call any Senators or Reps.
At the first number below you must wait through a tape recording urging you to tell your Rep or Senator to vote “yes” for the health care bill. Just hang on and when the recording is over, you will get the Capitol operator. Just ask for your Rep or Senator’s office. Then you will either talk to an aid or have the chance to leave a message for him/her to vote NO on the health care bill.

When you use the second number and the Capitol operator comes on, just ask for your Rep or Senator’s office. Every time I use this number I get the Rep or Senator’s answer machine, so it may be set up that way all the time...to go to their answer machine. Either way you can leave a message to vote NO on the health care bill!

We need to use these toll free numbers that have been set up for the health care/ BO supporters and illegals to use! After all they are FREE!
1-800-828-0498
1-866-220-0044 Defeat Obamacare call list: List now contains the new MAYBES culled from FR posts. Be sure to call KNOWN RINOS too.

KEEP THE CALLS UP! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE

Code Red” - House Target List on Health Care

On the Bubble (Major developments from the “yes” and “no” columns in the House)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467046/posts

Congressional Dems on Twitter
http://www.arrghpaine.com/congressional-dems-on-twitter

We need to use these toll free numbers that have been set up for the health care/ BO supporters and illegals to use! After all they are FREE!
1-800-828-0498
1-866-220-0044

54 posted on 03/14/2010 11:52:20 AM PDT by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)

According to you, a vote is not required. Their 'own rules', after all.

Enjoy your rule-of-fiat government. In **my** United States, the legislature has voted, publicly, on bills in the vast (99+) majority of instances for 221 years.

Ta ta.

55 posted on 03/14/2010 12:13:36 PM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama? A phony and a prick, ergo a dildo.)

Skimming the opposing posts above...

Seems it really is and isn’t Constitutional; depends on how you squint at it.

If considered as a one-off way of saying “yes, we approve of that bill” seems it’s just wording passage in different terms, a la “I voted for it” vs. “I claim I voted for it”. From this angle, I don’t see what the difference is save for fast-talking constituents into thinking a rep didn’t vote for the bill when he did.

If considered as substitution of version Y of a bill in place of what was in fact passed as version X, it’s outright fraud: saying what was passed was something it wasn’t by retroactively cutting & replacing what did pass with something that didn’t.

At best, it’s embarrassingly stupid word games.
At worst, it’s a core breakdown of government demanding correction by the other two branches lest the governed withdraw their consent.

56 posted on 03/14/2010 12:26:32 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)

Do you mean to imply that either House may pass rules for its proceedings that violate other portions of the Constitution?

Of course not.

Again, if your (and Levin's) interpretation is ruled to be correct, then all voice votes are likewise a violation of the Constitution, regardless of whether the yeas and nays can be called for.

A voice vote is, in effect, very similar to 'deeming' a bill to have been passed, because the number of votes are not counted. Instead, the chair rules that there were more voices either For or Against the matter.

But the portion of Art I that Levin and others have noted begins with, "In all SUCH cases," rather than, "In ALL cases". If the Founders had meant to say that ALL votes in both houses had to be recorded, they would have written, "In ALL cases", IMO.

57 posted on 03/14/2010 1:38:48 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if people follow. Otherwise, you just wandered off.)

To: savedbygrace

Actually, the text is: "But in all such cases...".

This is all one paragraph (I:7:2), and presumably the Framers possessed sufficient grammatical skills to understand (and intend) that, the first sentence of said paragraph being, "Every Bill which shall have passed", any subsequent text within the paragraph refers to "every bill".

There are numerous similar examples throughout the Constitution, and, more interestingly, there are counter-examples, wherein the Framers separated one sub-topic from another related sub-topic into paragraphs.

If 'yeas and nays' were meant to apply only to votes overriding a presidential veto, then A) I retract my comment about grammatical skills possessed of these otherwise remarkable gentlemen, and B) I reiterate the point earlier made by asking, "How then was a bill to be passed initially?" If not by 'yeas and nays', then what! by choosing lots? by the toss of a coin? by the angle of the sun at the close of debate?

Surely not by the decree of the Speaker and one or another toady. There would be exactly no point to even having a legislature if such an action were permissible.

I would have no objection at all to the rendering of all votes by 'yeas and nays'. Voice votes are not discussed anywhere in the Constitution; they originated from that very dangerous clause about the Houses making their own rules (I:5).

If the present-day Regress are going to trifle with the Constitution, as now appears the case, then there is nothing to be done except to turn them out of office and seek redress from the courts. It is, however, VERY disconcerting that you, and others here, seem blithely willing to grant to this notorious body ANY capability at all of simply passing bills by fiat.

58 posted on 03/14/2010 2:14:54 PM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama? A phony and a prick, ergo a dildo.)

If they pass the rule, they ARE passing the Senate bill.

No, they aren't. They are passing a bill that refers to a bill. They are not passing the same piece of legislation. Take a look at the constitutional text.

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...

The operative word here is "every". It says "every bill". The term is singular, not plural. The legislation voted on by the House and Senate have to be identical. The bills have to be the same. Even if you say that the House could pass a "meta bill" (which I don't think is the case), the "meta bill" would have to then go back before the Senate for consideration because the wording of the bill don't match.

59 posted on 03/14/2010 2:54:55 PM PDT by Poison Pill

You’re right - I left out ‘But’. Sorry, but it doesn’t change the meaning of my argument one iota.

Congress uses Roberts Rules of Order. In Roberts, there is a distinction made between votes requiring a simple majority and votes requiring a 2/3 majority. The simple majority votes are first taken by voice, the 2/3 majority votes are first taken as rising (and counting) votes.

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-01.htm#9

Art I Section 7 describes the same distinction, IMO, but specifies that the 2/3 majority votes must be taken by the yeas and nays, rather than merely by rising and counting.

So, it seems that voice votes are acceptable in Congress. If your interpretation of the paragraph in question is correct, then voice votes need to go away.

In this case, I suppose, Pelosi could accomplish the same result as the Slaughter House Rule by having the Chair call for a voice vote on the Senate bill, declare the Yeas have carried it, then after a Republican demands the Yeas and Nays, take a vote and rule that the Nays have it. Thus, the demand for the Yeas and Nays are thwarted by the rulings of the Chair. Then, to all Points of Order, the Chair declares that “the Chair has ruled”.

Then the Chair announces that the next order of business is the floor vote on the Reconciliation bill.

But I doubt all that happens because of the ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian that the Senate bills must be passed by the House and signed by the President before the Senate can consider the reconciliation bill..

60 posted on 03/14/2010 3:26:34 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if people follow. Otherwise, you just wandered off.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794