Replies

Okay, last time around on this one. All I'm saying is that (1) the self-executing rule has been used before and by both parties; (2) at the time, neither party in the minority bothered to challenge its use in court; (3) the reason why neither party has challenged the use of the self-executing rule in court is because both parties want to reserve the option of using it when they're in the majority. That's politics for you.

Mark Levin has said the same thing. Is he a flaming liberal douchebag?

Now, is there an established legal distinction between using the self-executing rule for raising debt ceilings versus implementing Obamacare? There doesn't seem to be. I haven't found any info saying that the House limits the use of self-executing rules only to certain matters. If you find something saying so, please send me the link.

Now, is there an ethical distinction between using the self-executing rule for raising debt ceilings versus implementing Obamacare? That's for the voters to decide in November.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have been reluctant to get involved in disputes concerning Senate and House rules. If Obamacare should pass, the best option is to challenge it in court on its very shaky constitutional grounds, ie, the individual mandate.

Last time. A self executing rule used to raise the debt ceiling because there was clerical error I believe. The Dems that are proposing it now were against it even though it was because of clerical error. The SCOTUS said it was constitutional because of INTENT. This is completely different.

Or am I completely wrong here?

Your links were suspect to say the least. Link Levine then. Problem is, I’m thinking he’s saying what I’ve been saying while you are seeming to cheerlead for the Dem’s response and the precedent set forth by procedural minutia done by Congress when it was a Republican majority like the links you posted.