Posted on 03/12/2010 2:10:24 PM PST by OldDeckHand
Republicans now expect Democrats to pass health care through the House with a trick only Capitol Hill could dream up: approving the Senate bill without voting on it.
Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate bill is “deemed passed.”
So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place.
It’s called the “Slaughter Solution” (prepare for a weekend of endless TV gabbing about it).
And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the tactic, and that they won’t allow Republicans, and the public, to see the text of any legislation for 72 hours before a vote.
“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Can’t we remove these as#holes in hand cuffs. This is treasonist
“This is just another step along the way. In reality, Social Security and Medicare should have been abhorent enough to create a revolt, but they didn’t. If this passes, the people will go right back to sleep until the feds take on a NEW power grab, and then that will be the issue of the day.”
Oh, you mean like the day after this (hypothetically) passes, when they plunge into amnesty, to try to get illegals the suffrage in time for November?
The class action lawyers are in the rats’ pockets.
This Slaughter fix circumvents the necessity of such a parliamentary ruling in the first place. Even if the Senate Parliamentarian would to rule adversely to the Dems, Biden - as President of the Senate - is fully empowered to overrule the Parliamentarian. When you're Hell-bent on ignoring the US Constitution to enact your political take over the US economy, a little thing like the Senate Parliamentarian isn't going to get in your way.
There's a good description of what might happen, and why it would probably work over at National Review...
:::SIGH:::
Maybe we should start a new religion then? Seriously, someone should come up with a bright idea. We can’t let our Republic go down the drain without some way to fight back!
Alas, some of us are too old and feeble to take up arms, unfortunately.
Well, first the electoral college confirms a president that doesn’t meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
Then it’s an easy jump to passing bills without voting on them (as required by the Constitution.
Kinda like what they do in Venezuela or Kenyan or Mozambique................
This is all a charade. The president should deem the bill passed by both houses and sign it into law and move on.
If they do this then I wonder what would stop them from deeming every future bill proposed by Obama as already passed? Seems it would be a possible avenue to invest him with dictatorial powers. It’s a semi-tinfoil hat notion, but then, our entire country has entered tinfoil hat territory already.
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps the second amendment would stop them...
You know, it wasn't put in the constitution to appease hunters.
You might be kidding, but given the unpopularity of this legislation coupled with the cratering Dem approvals, this may not be out of the question.
I'll spare you the legal mumo-jumbo, but essentially it's entirely up to Congress to define the naturalization process. If they're willing to tear up the rules to get health-care passed, why not tear up the rules to get immigration "fixes" passed? They could pass legislation that would give almost immediate citizenship to illegals that have been here (pick a number) 10 years. How many millions of illegals would that be? Whatever the number, it's probably more than enough to get them reelected this fall, and to create a permanent governing majority.
Think about it.
“The only possible antidote is to articulate clearly and repeatedly the deeper question(s); which of course is far beyond the courage and motivation of the political careerist (and media), regardless of party.
So indeed religion, or absence of such, does have a bearing on politics after all.”
Hear, hear! It is the national soul that we battle for - is it not?
Unfortunately, I'm only about half kidding. We're all watching what transpires with healthy doses of cynicism, dread, courage and an off handed sense of humor to keep our wits about us.
The rest of the provisions of the R Bill are the house modifications.
The R Bill goes to the Senate. The R Bill could also have a provision in it that says if this gets amended or modified in any way (changes in the new Reconciliation provisions put in by the House), the entire bill is void.
If it doesn't have such a provision, it doesn't protect the House much although I suppose if it is amended by the Senate to make changes the House wouldn't approve, it then wouldn't be law unless it went back to the House and got approved.
Difficult to see, if they do that, how it passes the Senate rule on Reconciliation--among other things, how does the original (Senate) bill get signed? The rest of the bill hasn't been passed by the Senate. Difficult to see how it passes the Parlimentarian ruling.
I don't seen anything about the procedure that would make such procedure unconstitutional--there are provisions in the Senate bill that are in my opinion, of doubtful Constitutional validity.
The vote on the R bill including adoption of the Senate Bill as a separate provision would get a vote count and so would pass.
I may have my facts wrong about what the slaugter tactic is. I agree with the other poster that a bill has to pass the senate and house before it reaches the president.
I’m saying the national gubmint has been expanding power since the Washington administration. By the time FDR was done, it was virtually limitless. This is just another brick in the wall.
I think we need to run the old Schoolhouse Rock cartoon with Jack Sheldon as the bill.
"A Republic, if you can keep it.", or so said Franklin. He knew what he was talking about. And Jefferson - with his disdain for the big cities - knew precisely where the great problems for the Republic would spring; Large groups of people clustered together in small areas become increasingly dependent on the government. They trade security for personal liberty, gladly. And this is how we've come some 70 years since the advent of Social Security and it has only become larger, not smaller.
For Congress, of course.
IF Biden were to fire or overrule the Senate Parliamentarian, then he would be acting ‘irrationally’ would he not?
John Armor, who blogs at Free Republic under the handle Congressman BillyBob had this to say in his thread this morning entitled “When Congress Cheats on its Rules”
[You can look it up yourself]
“Under normal circumstances, courts will not interfere with the decisions of a House of Congress, or a house of a state legislature, when it concerns the internal rules of that house. Most state constitutions, like the US Constitution, give explicit authority for houses of the legislature to adopt and apply their own operating rules. But like all other rules of conduct, this one of forbearance of courts from legislative rules has its exception.
Does anyone remember Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.? He was a corrupt, Democrat Member of the House from Harlem in New York City. He was regularly reelected by wide margins, but because of legal complications in New York, he was subject to arrest if he set foot in his District, any day except Sundays. So, he would preach in the Abyssinian Baptist Church, and spend the balance of the week either in Washington DC, or Bimini.
In short, he was a disgrace, and the House wanted to shut him out. So, in 1966, after he was reelected, the House simply refused to seat him. Powell then sued, because the House had not followed its own rules.
In Powell v. McCormack in 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the House had not followed its own rules. It ordered the House to seat Powell, and then expel him by the specified two-thirds vote, if they so choose.
So there is a role for the Supreme Court when the Houses of Congress flagrantly and critically break their own rules. The Court can, should, and probably will throw out as unconstitutional-for breaking their own rules-whatever ‘health care reform’ bill Congress purports to pass, by CHEATING.”
As to the issue of STANDING, “Any Member of the House or Senate would have standing to file a case saying that a supposed “law” which they opposed, was “passed” in violation of both the Constitution and the Rules of their House. Standing will not be a problem in this case.
-30-
About the Author: John Armor practiced law in the United States Supreme Court for 33 years. His latest book, on Thomas Paine, will be published this year. www.TheseAreTheTimes.us Reach him here:
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
It’s dead Jim.
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.