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.
This will come to a head when individual States opt out, citing among other abuses the irregular basis of the Bill’s passage. It will become a Federal vs. State issue. Things will get real dicey, in a Fort Sumter sort of way, when a State seeks to protect its Citizen’s from the Bill’s Federal revenue collection.
Regardless of what the parliamentarian does, it can be overruled, if I understand the system correctly, though I do not know the specifics of how that is done.
The American people are ultimately responsible for their own failure.
Abortions funded with taxpayer dollars.. Slaughter solution.. How appropriate.
''Fear Strikes Out'', an old Tony Perkins film, applies here with our American people.
I hope they do it. It would be stuck down by the Supreme Court!
In fact, that may be the easiest way to kill this monster.
Not at all, the Supreme Court does not interfere in parliamentary affairs of the Congress, only in the “substance” when the court has its own political interest. The American people can’t understand.
what kind of congressman votes for this trash...one that hates this country?
Tar and Feathers as a starter. Escalate punishment as necessary.
According to our own expert, Congressman Billybob, there is precedent for the Supreme Court to become involved in the event that Congress does not follow it’s own rules.
The liberal fascists in this country do not understand that the power that America has from God to crush oppression and tyranny no longer resides in the White House and Capitol because it has been taken from them and transfered to the citizenry. It is a force that has been within America from its inception and has never lost against evil. Their evil has gone over the top and all they have done is outraged our Lord and will bring upon themselves His wrath and punishment. The Scriptures have a horrific warning to these apostates:
Hebrews 10:26-31
26 For if we wilfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy ‘on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 29How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know the one who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Armed to max and ready to go.
Guys, we need to e-mail and call this treasonous Bit**’s Office and let her know the outrage that we’re feeling! I e-mailed and called her yesterday morning. I reminded her that the Dems won’t be in power forever, and that we’ll demand that they be tried for treason for the way they’re circumventing our Constitution. They need to go to jail! No more of the GW Bush conciliatory Bull Sh** and “New Tone” mantra! I want these fools tried for treason!
They need to understand that this is what we’re going to call for after the next election!
Please call her and express your outrage!
Louise Slaughter
Washington D.C. Office
2469 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822
I want to know where are the Republicans. They should be on every cable news show shouting this to the top of the roof.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
They are but no cable news network will give them air time except FOX, and CNN on very rare occasions. The Dems have them over a barrel because the American people turned the government over to them in 2008.
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.