GOP Rules Chief Resigned to Letting Dems Make Obamacare the Law Without Actually Voting on It

CNS News ^ | 3-16-10 | Matt Cover

[fortheDeclaration]

The GOP is on our side on this issue.

[cake_crumb]

"Dreier, who is the top House Republican responsible for making sure that Congress follows legitimate rules of procedure, told reporters yesterday that he is not a constitutional expert...."

"Speechless."

DISGUSTED here, and really, REALLY ANGRY.

[Palladin]

Dems are shredding the Constitution.

How long do they think American patriots are going to put up with this?

Look at all those Tea Party folks in DC today.

Dreier is just another RINO—not willing to fight for the cause.

[fortheDeclaration]

Where he is wrong is that this IS unconstitutional, and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know it.

And he needs to be let the Democrats that it will not be considered a Law by Americans.

This is not a third world nation.

[GOPsterinMA]

Thanks - will do! Image that - a black nazi.

[Talisker]

If the Speaker of the House, the President Pro-tempore of the Senate and the President say it was passed and signed properly, the courts generally take their word for it.

Not so. From the article: "As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’”

Article I, Section 7 goes on about vetoes and overrides but that’s the heart of the matter. Notice it doesn’t say what ‘passed’ means. We all assume it means a vote where the majority of members vote yes but that’s not actually stated. What it takes to pass a bill is left up the rules of each house and courts aren’t likely to get involved in that.

What are you talking about - the exact opposite is true! From the article, again: "Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, however, expressly states that for any bill to become law "the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by the 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." After that, under the Constitution, the president must either sign the bill or hold it for ten days (not counting Sundays), after which it will become law unless Congress adjourns in the interim.

And as for the asinine decalaration that "it doesn’t say what ‘passed’ means" - I guess the Founders figured that if they mandate that "the yeas and Nays" be counted, that meant the yeas would PASS the bill.

That such a stupid objection can be written without mortifying shame is what's really wrong with this country.

Added... A few years ago, Nancy went to go to court to stop Republicans from doing something similar, though on a much smaller scale. Good news, we’ve got her on hypocrisy. Bad news, she lost the court challenge.

"Something similiar?" In other words, NOT THIS.

Get lost, troll - and don't come back until you can at least form a cogent, rational and logical slimy undermining Rat argument.

[RipSawyer]

I would consider Harrington and Richardson.

[Lazamataz]

From the article: "As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’”

What say you, Huck?

[Jim Noble]

" I’m not in a position to raise the (constitutionality) question right now.” -Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee

Well, then, Representative Dreier, just what are you doing there?

My advice is for you to resign immediately and leave town.

You are NOT going to be happy in the near future. Get while the getting's good.

[fortheDeclaration]

Exactly!

They need to let the Democrats know that it won't be business as usual if they 'pass' the Bill in that manner.

The GOP will reject every single piece of Democrat legislature.

[RipSawyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZBSv4NzJs

[fortheDeclaration]

The Supreme Court knocked down the line item veto because it took away from House responsiblities.

It is the responsbility of the House to VOTE on Bills.

[Palladin]

These actions by the Dems will have consequences.

I’ve been rewatching Ken Burns’ Civil War Series. What is past is prologue.

Civil War Two is on the horizon. As its remote causes,I see Waco and Ruby Ridge.

As its proximate cause, I see the passage of this Healthcare Horror by trickery and deception.

[cajungirl]

Spine has nothing to do with it,,the committee is a majority dem committee and can do what it pleases. The man is just saying what the reality is.

[fortheDeclaration]

Drier can let the Democrats know that using such a unconstitutional precedure will be resisted and rejected both by the GOP and American people!

[sbark]

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/15/the-slaughter-rule-yet-another-reason-obamacare-will-be-unconstitutional/

Heritage-———Unconstitutional. period

[Huck]

As I understand it, if the rule is passed, then the Senate bill (in identical language) is passed. That's why they are using reconciliation measures to make changes. They know they have to vote on the Senate bill as is, but want the changes enacted simultaneously, so they create a rule that serves as a vote on the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill at the same time.

Clinton v. City of New York struck down the presidential line-item veto.

[roses of sharon]

Sorry Talisker, I should have posted the links (not my work...this is from National Review and ACE).

http://minx.cc/?post=299438
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTM4NGEyNTlhNmNmNjJmMGRkYzk3NmY0ZjAzODgxN2M=

[MrRobertPlant2009]

I think Levine is wrong.

The Democrats can do this. The question is, will they pay for it at the ballot box.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

I think Drier is correct.