Welcome to Martial Law: House Dems Will Rule They Voted on Health Care Without Actually Voting On It

Hot Air ^ | March 13, 2010

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Washington Examiner reports that House Democrats appear poised to adopt a rule that would pass the Senate health care bill without actually voting on it.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was originally reported by the National Journal’s Congress Daily. Mark Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate refutation of the people’s will.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!

‘The Greatest Assault on the Constitution In Your Lifetime’

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.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!

Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

…It would be government by fiat… meaning there would be no law… the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us… at the brink. At the brink.

This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you’ll ever get… So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race — with scores of others — to the courthouse to stop this.

I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!

…It’s not only absurd on its face — that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on… that’s not only absurd on its face, it’s blatantly unconstitutional!

Levin: I wanted to bring additional firepower on this subject, my buddy Arthur Fergenson, who is a Constitutional expert and who has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, including Buckley vs. Valeo…

What do you make of this unbelievable — that they’re even talking about, this chairman of the Rules Committee — acting as if members of the House voted on something when they didn’t actually vote on it?

Fergenson: It’s preposterous. It’s ludicrous. But it’s also dangerous. It’s dangerous because, first, …because [the U.S. Constitution's] Article I Section VII says every bill — and it capitalized “bill” — …it is common sense that the bill is the same item, it can’t be multiple bills, it can’t be mashups of bills. And, in fact, in 1986, Gene Gressman, no conservative, and one of the experts — the expert — on Supreme Court practice… was writing an article that was dealing with a less problematic attempt to get around this section of the Constitution… [Ed: the line-item veto] and he wrote, “By long usage and plain meaning, ‘Bill’ means any singular and entire piece of legislation in the form it was approved by the two houses.”

…the bills have to be revoted until they are identical. Both chambers have to vote on the bill.

If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House and there were to be a bill presented to the President for his signature, that was a bill that had not been voted on — identically by the two Houses of Congress — that bill would be a nullity. It is not law. That is chaos.

I cannot recall any circumstance in which that has happened.

…What we have here is a measure, that if Obama signed it, would immediately affect taxation, it would change rules of practice in the insurance industry, it would regulate 17% of the nation’s economy, and it would be done without any legal basis whatsoever!

Fergenson: It’s like, the closest I can think of is martial law! The President would have no authority — there would be no law! It’s not like it would be constitutional or not. There would be. No. Law.

Levin: What do you make of people who sit around and even think of things like this? To me, they are absolutely unfit to even be in high office!

Fergenson: You’re right, Mark. And I would go back to what caused Gressman to write this… he was asked for his comments by the Senate… because the Senate was trying to do the equivalent of a line-item veto. And, in 1986, you were in the Justice Department under Attorney General Meese… there was a proposal… to take a bill and divide it into little pieces and.. then the President would sign each one or veto each one. That was unconstitutional. A Senate Rules Committee reported it unfavorably.

Levin: You know what’s interesting about this… Attorney General Ed Meese considered it unconstitutional even though President Reagan had wanted a line-item veto. And President Reagan agreed that it was unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution…

…Speaking for myself, I would tell the people who listen to this program that you are under absolutely no obligation to comply with it [this health care bill] because it is not, in fact, law. Do you agree with me?

Fergenson: I agree with you. I believe it would be tested by the Supreme Court. I believe that, under these circumstances, chaos would reign. There is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. The courts are empowered to determine whether it’s unconstitutional… it’s not a law.

Under this scenario, the various arms of the federal government will be acting under a law that does not exist.

[DarthVader]

“Too many wouldn’t mind full-blown Communism here today. Americans aren’t what they use to be.”

BS. About 30-40% who are useless eaters in our society maybe. That is where you are sadly mistaken. California where you live is a shell of what it was once. Your state is a basket case and serves as a reminder to the rest of the country of what not to become. This country may very well fragment like the USSR did to avoid civil war which is rapidly becoming a certainty because of the deep ideological and cultural divides we have.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Which Supreme would likely rule on whether they would even hear this? one of the conservatives or one of the liberals?

[b cool]

ISLAMIC TERRORIST = bammy boy? yes, no?

[b cool]

...Well, he could be removed from office for being mentally incapable to execute the duties of his office.

There are, I believe, several valid arguements as to his mental abilities.

[montanajoe]

Civil war is not a certainty just a pipe dream. It is an anathema to any true American Conservative or American Patriot. We Americans been there did that. If this passes then the thing to do is call for its repeal and elect congress critters that will do it. That is being an true American Patriot and American Conservative.

[Niteflyr]

BS. About 30-40% who are useless eaters in our society maybe.

I pay very close attention to what others say in the nation as well as the world....and I'm aware of the "political pollution" in my home state...but if you add the percentage of the totally gutless to the 40% useless eaters.... and the fact that if anyone rises up in revolt many from our own side of the fence label them as "right wing kooks" I don't see how anything significant could ever get off the ground. Hope I'm dead wrong.

[Niteflyr]

If this passes then the thing to do is call for its repeal and elect congress critters that will do it. That is being an true American Patriot and American Conservative.

I sense there is not enough agreement or solidarity to even accomplish that...

[RhoTheta]

Ping

[montanajoe]

I sense there is not enough agreement or solidarity to even accomplish that...

Then there sure as hell is not enough for CW II...

[Niteflyr]

Then there sure as hell is not enough for CW II...

Exactly...if you won't get off your fat lazy spoiled ass to argue you sure are not going to get off your fat lazy ass to fight....

[nutmeg]

Excerpt:

‘The Greatest Assault on the Constitution In Your Lifetime’

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...

[DarthVader]

I agree with you that Civil War will not happen in this country if these grievances are redressed through the electoral process but if that becomes undoable as it did in the 1860s the possibility of armed conflict is a reality no matter how much people loathe it. The Union and Confederacy were loathe to do it themselves. The Tea Party movement and powerful revival of Constitutional conservatism that is sweeping the country is the kind of thing where forces can organize around and become the springboard for war.

[montanajoe]

Talk of civil war is dangerous and frankly ridiculous. It underestimates the people of this great country and more importantly it fails to take note of today's world.
If there were a CW II do you think China or even some of our “friends” in Europe or the Middle East would not seize the opportunity to take out our country?

The defeatism of the left and the civil war talk on the right will get us all killed..

[AmericanInTokyo]

In most political suspense novels, it would go something like this, right about this time:

All one can see is that quite clearly now--what with this arrogant and dangerous, tyrannical "Slaughter" nonsense and Axelrod's mouthings--there are really only three books needed right now by the average American who has had his or her fill of this nonsense for low these 14 months, to put a stop to this monstrosity, this coup d'etat against the Will of the People.

First and foremost of course is:

Another is is:

The other is:

Combined with that one knows the exact names and locations of every staff member of the United States Congress, locally, in district offices across the land. Probably any number of them within 20 minutes driving direction of most people. These people from problematic Congressional Offices can and should be reached and told in no uncertain terms--and "in their faces" that the American People are NOT going to stand for this Communist Coup 'd Etat of Forced Obamacare making a joke of our Constitutional Law--at the behest of their employers in D.C, the lawmakers, OUR SERVANTS.

If We The People, Americans, have to even camp out on their lawns or front sidewalks of these legislative assistants, district aides and deputies, handlers and sycophants, or show up in force to the district offices of elected officials all across the land on a district-by-district grassroots bassi with an attitude, then so be it (not everyone can go all the way to D.C. all of a sudden). The action to save our country will be played out in towns and cities across the land.

[DarthVader]

You may call it ridiculous but it is still a reality that can happen. It is not desirable and dangerous as you say from the outside due to these threats. In fact it is only those threats that hold us together much the way the threat of the USSR held together Yugoslavia. I feel our nation is becoming so divided and polarized mainly from the left who is so bankrupt of ideas that they have no way to hold power in this country except to cause class envy & division. This is causing deep-seeded hatred. When you throw in illegal immigration and Obama’s evils this situation is becoming even more toxic. When you take the outside threat(s) away these situations tend to explode as it did in the Balkans.

[AmericanInTokyo]

One thing is sure. Some sons of bitches are going to pay over this. They are not going to take our country like this so easily. They will have reaped the whirlwind.

[montanajoe]

I understand what you are saying but I am confident that American Patriots and true Conservatives will prevail ..

[Niteflyr]

I am confident that American Patriots and true Conservatives will prevail

I've had that position until just recently...seen way too much apathy and lethargy around me...if you got away from FreeRepublic, talk radio and Fox news you'd think absolutely nothing important was going on...

[DarthVader]

“I understand what you are saying but I am confident that American Patriots and true Conservatives will prevail ..”

I hope and pray the same but in order for that to happen America and the west must have a spiritual revival because our moral compass and national culture in this country is rapidly decaying due to relativism and mutli-culturism. Jesus gave some great teachings which we cannot ignore and we are reaping exactly the kinds of things he said would happen to any kingdom or nation.

Matthew 5:13 13 ‘You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. (Deals with moral & spiritual relativism)

25He knew what they were thinking and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. (deals with national culture, purpose & unity)

These are realties that we can no longer ignore or trivialize anymore if we want to survive.

[DarthVader]

You can say that again and that is the preferable solution to a civil conflict. We must purge this nation’s domestic enemies.