Posted on 03/14/2010 8:32:39 PM PDT by 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.
Problem is if you look outside FreeRepublic...talk radio and Fox news no one seems to know anything about this and doesn't give a damn. I hear it every day. "Say what?...they're still arguing over that healthcare bill? I haven't heard a thing about it lately".
You live in an alternate universe in CA. FR is only one site of many on the web. There is lots of talk about these things in other parts of the country. The Dems would not be having the kind of trouble passing this sham bill they are having if they were not getting blitzed by constituents like they are. They are getting pummeled by phone calls, letters, petitions and emails by the thousands everyday.
I think it’s more likely the US will eventually break up like the old Soviet Union. Not saying it’s a certainty, or that I want it to happen though.
When our economy totally collapses(a matter of when, not if) and the Feds can’t pay the troops, we’ll just dissolve. Sure there’ll be unrest and violence, but not a full scale hot war. That’s how I see it..
Maybe a Phoenix can rise from the ashes.
I understand the alternate universe I live in...but I have friends who are good hard-working Americans who go home and turn on broadcast news...are too busy to hang out at conservative blogs...and believe the MSM about talk radio being just entertainment. They have no real clue as to the seriousness of the problem. Strange thing is that I run into more conservative minded people here than liberals by far, (even in deep blue CA) but they just don't get that there is a real threat afoot. I gotta believe that this must be true elsewhere in the country. What with schools...newsprint and broadcast news controlled by the left it is pretty tough to expect many to not be somewhat brainwashed even if at the core good intelligent people. Then you add that 40% that are mouthbreathing useless eaters...and the gutless who turn and run at the first sign of a skirmish...I just think there are fewer of us than there are of them. Don't get me wrong...I hope this is not true.
Yeah that makes more sense...the people that built this country had far more passion and fire about protecting it than those who inherited it. It's like anything you get for free...you just don't appreciate it like you would if you had to work for it. That's why I'm so opposed to amnesty for illegal Mexicans....just a free pass. How can you expect them to respect and care for this country when they get it for free?
Oh yeah and we have to add that to the mix....
This can be brought to the court by any by any citizen(they have leagal standing) because its in the Constitution.
.....”I just think there are fewer of us than there are of them. Don’t get me wrong...I hope this is not true”.......
That remains to be seen I think Niteflyr. Someone said leaders won’t rise to the occasion until there is blood on the streets...or something like that. It is all about the numbers. Just as with so called moderate muslims...there are simply not enough of them nor the financing. So who would finance a rebellion in our country? I can’t see it happening. What I can see is people not paying taxes or a revolt that hits the pockets in Washington. Stop the cash flow and they will then sing a different tune.
You are so right...have you been to Threat Matrix on FR? There is some amazing coverage of the islamic threat and information of those who are spreading it and how. Plus happenings acrooss the nation and world. Pays to stop by at least every other day...they have some remarkable insite to what’s really going on...no political correctness there.
The author makes a good point. If the SCOTUS ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional, they MUST do the same with the Slaughter bill.
Thanks..
War has been declared on the citizens of this country and it is not the Islamic terrorists who are doing the damage.<<
You might want to reconsider this coment!!
What Civil War?<<<< There is plenty of armchair bluster but revolt is a pipe dream.
Organized resistance and mass civil disobedience can destroy their plans amd is the only viable strategy at this point!
Take a lesson from the revolutionary war, the time for shooting is when they come for your guns!!
I frankly don’t see anyone to eager to give up the comfort of their computer screens to risk what is neccesary to combat the communists!!
Its coming.... very VERY soon.
saving
So, are you ready to kill your neighbor... or brother... or cousin... or uncle to correct it?
If you can honestly say that enough Americans will organize into combat units and are willing to kill their own countrymen; their own kin, if necessary, to correct this... then there might be a civil war.
If not, there won’t.
In the grand scheme of things, the loss of a few hundred thousand communists to save the republic would be a just tradeoff. Better dead than red.
That's not a civil war - that's a massacre.
Civil war requires a split in the officer corps of at least the land forces, whereby principled and honorable officers, all bound by and intending to obey their oaths, disagree about the meaning of that oath applied to a certain set of circumstances. The limits (if any) of the sovereignty of Virginia was one such example.
The present crisis contains the seeds of such a split, but the situation has not yet matured.
Gestures of rebellion while the central government retains the loyalty of the armed forces will actually make the path of the present government easier.
I’m a bit concerned that, for all the talk of a major backlash against dems in November, too many idiot voters will get the idea by then they haven’t been hurt and the sky hasn’t fallen. They may talk themselves (with extensive help from the SRM) into believing this won’t be “such a bad thing.” Our side HAS to keep the heat on.
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.