House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it (Slaughter Rule in serious play)

Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane

[chessplayer]

“If they try it, self-execution will automatically follow, it just make take until November for the effect to become evident.”

Once again, THEY DON`T CARE IF THEY LOSE IN NOVEMBER. To them, temporarily losing control of Congress is a very small price to pay to pass Obamacare. They don`t care about the Constitution, and they sure as hell don`t care about the voters. The fight is over. They are going to shove this down our throats one way or another. We had best get used to it.

[tired_old_conservative]

“The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill.

So confusing. If it's been done before than how can it be unconstitutional now? It would seem to me the mere amount of a bill alone doesn't constitute lawlessness but rather the procedure used. Anyone know?”

There's a lot of misunderstanding about this. If it goes forward, a vote will take place. It will basically approve the Senate bill as originally passed in the Senate and simultaneously approve revisions to it. To cut through all the mumbo-jumbo, the House will basically assent to the Senate bill via its vote on the reconciliation bill. It's all needlessly tedious and perhaps an excellent demonstration of why the rules in the House and Senate should be more straightforward, but this mechanism has been used before. And unfortunately, if the Parliamentarian agrees, I can't imagine any court intervening in the legislature's interpretation of its own rules.

C’est la vie. We'll see if the Dems can actually muster the votes or not.

[Theophilus]

Unfortunately, people elected these congress-critters. But that can soon be remedied.

You Betcha!

[Presto]

Okay, soooo if the House passes an otherwise innocuous bill (say on the naming of a post office somewhere) that has attached a “self-executing rule” which declares that whatever the next bill happens to pass the Senate, the House too will deem that bill’s passage; this is to be considered Constitutional?

Oh wait, here’s an even better hypothetical that will highlight how utterly ridiculous it is to assume that tricky-slick-lawyer-speak automatically renders the Constitution impotent. Imagine that the very first legislative act of a newly sworn-in House of Representatives is a bill that mandates that for the remainder of the Congressional term only bills proposed by the President can be passed through the House and furthermore that all bills proposed by the President will be deemed to automatically pass the House.

Obviously the House would be abdicating outright its Constitutional responsibility by effectively transferring the entirety of its legislative authority to the executive branch - which is patently unconstitutional. And yet this would be consistent with the stupid theory of “self-executing rules” which “deems” legislation to pass the House that has never been voted on by the House. I can hear the whining objection now: “But those would be pieces of legislation that the House doesn’t even know about yet! We’re only going to say it’s Constitutional to ‘deem’ the passage of those bills for which the Congress already has explicit knowledge.” Oh yeah? And where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress must have explicit knowledge of a bill before it can “deem” the bill’s passage?? Nowhere, you nitwit!

The obvious expectation laid out in Article I Section 7 of the Constitution is that bills will pass (or not) a chamber of Congress by direct vote. Though this expectation might be slickly ‘interpreted’ as being non-explicit; it is nonetheless crystal clear. When such crystal clear Constitutional parameters are ignored or twisted, you can easily arrive at unconstitutional absurdities such as either or both of the chambers of Congress ‘legitimately’ abdicating their powers, authorities, and responsibilities wholly to the President.
Fools! Fools!
Shall we next ‘discuss’ what the meaning of the word “is” is?

[Stultis]

The reconciliation bill was released late Sunday night. I saw it myself (at least PDF 2000+ pages of it).

No. It wasn't. That's not the bill. Well, it is the bill, for procedural purposes, but it's not the bill that will ultimately be voted on (or "deemed" on). It's a "place holder" that allows the associated processes to proceed. A "Potemkin Bill," if you will.

[Army Air Corps]

Man, I wish there were an English translation available.

[PghBaldy]

OK. I guess it was the so-called “shell” bill that others have spoken of. Best wishes and have a good night.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Yes. But is it any surprise??!! We knew TWO YEARS AGO. The Roman Columns in Colorado should have tipped off half the country.

Guess "Dancing with the Stars" and "American Idol" were just too important for the People. Sad.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!