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

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

[cake_crumb]

[Right Wing Assault]

Didn't Bush think the same thing with McLame-FineGold?

Yeah, and he was lucky enough to not die of old age before they ruled on it. Hope this doesn't happen with obamacare.

[italianquaker]

I guess you think he would be worse then odumbo. ok

[Talisker]

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.

The main subject matter of Clinton vs. New York does not restrict the ruling on the requirement for an "exact text" to be passed by both Houses for a Bill - that was a ruling on requirements for any Bill, not just the presidential line-item veto.

As for the legal justification of the "simultaneous enacting" of reconciliation changes, such an effort fails in both directions.

First, if it (simultaneity) is invoked through the power of reconciliation, it fails because it both exceeds the explicit budgetary topic limitation of reconciliation by also attempting to pass the legislation of the bill itself, and violates it's requirement that the bill it reconciles has - already - not only been passed by both Houses of Congress, but also signed into law by the president.

Second, if it (simultaneity) is invoked through the power of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, it fails because that Section states "the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." Note that the votes must be entered for and against the Bill itself - not some reference to the Bill. So that means this "reconciliation vote" cannot meet that 1/7 requirement, because it is specifically NOT a vote on the Bill itself - Pelosi is even bragging about this point.

So as I can't see how simultaneity can be successfully defended, and the Court has already shown it will rule at least on the requirement that 1/7 be strictly followed, I see SCOTUS striking down this "law" (if it Obama ever gets to sign it) as never passed by both Houses, and thus void.

[Lazamataz]

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.

So if I am to understand this correctly, in a convoluted way, they are giving the bill an up or down, Yea or Nay vote. It is like saying this:

I vote for bill A, which means by proxy I vote for bill B.

However, it's not the exact language of the constitution, which says in the Article 1, Section 5, "Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

Which means the GOP should be able to force them to vote on it with a handful of members.

And the Clinton v. City of New York (1998) Line Item Veto case does set precedent that the Court may rule on procedure, since it did make the comment "the bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’".

I think it's enough of a stretch to tie it up in courts and force an injunction against implementation.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

Clinton versus City of New York was decided on the legislation. Not procedure.

The line item veto is not a House or Senate rule as the president is not a member of either body.

[Little Ray]

Wrong. Something like this has been done before, and the USSC wouldn’t touch it. Its wrong, but its a political wrong, not a Constitutional wrong.

[1010RD]

Hence the need to attack the Supreme Court. We’re through the looking glass and I almost cannot believe this is America.

If I wasn’t from Chicago I really couldn’t believe it.

[cake_crumb]

Exactly. Therefore, I posit that if it had a chance in Hell of not being shot down, they would have DONE it already rather than leaving the THREAT hanging in the air for couple of weeks.

[Lazamataz]

Clinton versus City of New York was decided on the legislation. Not procedure.

Yet, procedure was cited. Not only cited, but stated as fact of law by the Constitution's color, and since they are the ones who enforce the Constitutionality of law, it appears this may bleed over enough to merit their attention.

[Perdogg]

Did you completely read what he said, or did you just headline shop?

[Right Wing Assault]

I guess you think he would be worse then odumbo. ok

Didn't say that or imply that as everyone can see by reading my post. I just disagree that McCain is looking better. He looks better than obama (except for a lot of the time during the debates where he wouldn't fight back) but he's still McCain, with his 'hands across the aisle' approach and his apparent enthusiasm for amnesty. I'm even concerned that he would end up giving us a socialistic health care system in conjunction with his democrat 'friends.'

If he's nominated, of course I vote for him, but I pray we come up with someone a lot better.

[Lazamataz]

You may be correct, on two counts: That

1. This will provoke a Constitutional Crisis at the maximum, or cause an injunctive delay at the minimum, or
2. Cause so much backlash that they can expect to see physical resistance, monetaty noncomplience, legal interference, and awful voter backlash for decades.

[Lazamataz]

If McCain is nominated again, I am leaving the country.

[Perdogg]

If someone can find the exact text of the Supreme Court ruling, I’d love to see it. The left is going to say that it was passed.

FYI...
CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK (97-1374) 985 F. Supp. 168, affirmed.
WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Would Supreme Court rule unconstitutional law passed with Slaughter Solution? By: MARK TAPSCOTT
Editorial Page Editor
03/15/10 4:21 PM EDT

Democrats in Congress might want to re-read the 1998 Supreme Court decision Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 before moving forward with the Slaughter Solution to pass President Obama’s health care reform bill. That decision is chiefly remembered today for holding a federal version of the line-item veto as unconstitutional.

The reason, according to Amy Ridenour at the National Center Blog, is that the Justice John Paul Stevens articulated in the majority opinion the precise rationale for a similar ruling against legislation passed using the Slaughter Solution.

Ridenour notes that Stevens wrote:

“...our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became ‘Public Law 105—33’ after three procedural steps were taken:

“(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law.’ Art. I, Section 7.

“If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105—33 would not have been validly enacted. [Emphasis added] If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature.

“Something that might be known as ‘Public Law 105—33 as modified by the President’ may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may ‘become a law’ pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution.”

That reasoning would seem applicable to legislation approved under the Slaughter Solution, since the House would be voting on a proposed rule for considering a bill and not the bill itself.

Something to think about, Madame Speaker. You can read all of Amy’s post here.

Any bets on how long before a liberal lawyer writes in to explain why the Justice Stevens’ logic would not apply to the Slaughter Solution?

[italianquaker]

The disgrace that was McCains campaign I am trying to forget. That being said, there is no worse then odumbo.
He is even ashamed to fly our Flag in Haiti

[cake_crumb]

Nail on the head. Those are the hopes I’m holding out for.

[ichabod1]

We need a third party because two parties are not enough to represent the spectrum of political opinion.

[ichabod1]

We get another candidate like McCain, and I’ll tell you what, I’ll vote for him again but we will LOOSE again.

[Huck]

I vote for bill A, which means by proxy I vote for bill B.

Close, but not exactly. I vote for RULE A, which means I vote to pass the Senate bill. But you get the basic idea. I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents this.