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.
A few points to be taken here: Note the use of "ALL" cases... no exceptions. You cannot make a rule to circumvent a clause of the constitution, without driving us to anarchy. Then, a requirement that the yes/no names be entered in the journal... as it says "shall", as opposed to might or may or should. The Slaughter-rule would send a bill to -19 without this very specific section being followed, by letter nor by spirit.
Doesnt this section apply to cases where a veto has been applied by the president and an override vote has been taken. I view this as a case of congress passing an expost facto law which is more clearly forbidden. The law shall not deem to have been passed until it is ammended.
Citizens and States would have standing in court for refusing to recognize a bill that constitutionally never became law. I am certain the SCOTUS would see it that way.
The (D)s will most probably argue in court that the vote on the rule was in fact a vote on the Senate Bill; then say on the campaign stump they never voted for the Senate Bill, just a rule.
IIRC a concurring vote on a Bill to send it to the POTUS has never been done via a rule vote.
Others have suggested that bills are passed by voice vote all the time, but now I’m wondering if those are things that are not “laws” but are some other legislative intent.
Those people though say the enumeration of votes is only for a veto override. But then why the term “In All Cases”?
I still think the better argument is that they won’t have passed the SAME LANGUAGE, since however the house passes the bill, it will have been by a vote that included additional language enacted by the vote, either the rule, or the reconciliation bill.