Posted on 03/16/2010 9:12:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Lefties (Daily Kos, TPMDC, and Huffington Post) are defending against allegations that the “Slaughter Rule” proposed strategy to pass ObamaCare without a vote is unprecedented and unconstitutional. The Slaughter Rule has the support of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and is the Democrats preferred strategy to pass ObamaCare. Liberals are peddling a talking point that self-executing rules like the Slaughter Rule have been done before and it was the Republicans that used this tool in the past.
The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today that critiques the Pelosi strategy, the “Slaughter Rule,” that is being considered to pass ObamaCare.
We’re not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. Under the “reconciliation” process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.
I eagerly await the left pointing to a precedent where a bill is deemed to have passed without a direct vote that effects 1/6th of the U.S. economy. I also await a precedent where the House used a vote on a budget reconciliation measure to deem as passed another piece of legislation. This process is so complicated that the President has to sign the ObamaCare bill before he signs the reconciliation measure into law, for this trick to work.
Speaker Pelosi admitted that she does not want to allow a direct vote on the House passed measure when she stated yesterday that “nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.” Ryan Grimm of the Huffington Post writes:
The Speaker, in a press briefing with progressive media in her Capitol office, said that three options were under consideration. One of them involved a vote on the Senate health care bill, followed by a vote on a reconciliation package. “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill,” she said. She wouldn’t rule out that option, she said, because there is no official bill language yet, which she said she needs first before she makes a decision on process.
This shows an intent on the part of Pelosi to skirt the Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” If the House does not have a direct vote on the legislation, this seems to be a violation of the explicit language of the Constitution. Pelosi favors the Slaughter Rule that would allow a complicated procedure to be used so that the House does not have to schedule a direct vote on the Senate passed version of ObamaCare at any stage in the process. More from Huffington Post and Pelosi:
So the third option is to write the rule so that the passage of the reconciliation package deems the Senate bill to also have passed, a parliamentary maneuver she said the Senate parliamentarian had said was acceptable. It’s a technical distinction and Democrats hope that it’s deep enough in the weeds that average voters will focus instead on the substance of the legislation instead of the confusing process. Asked if she had firmly decided to pursue the third option, she answered, “I like the third one better.”
Now we know that the House is seriously considering a procedure of questionable constitutionality to pass a bill of questionable constitutionality. Once this trigger is pulled, the Senate will consider a reconciliation measure that is functionally an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill. This violates the House and Senate tradition that reconciliation amend existing law as a deficit cutting tool. After that, the President has to sign the Senate passed, and House deemed to have been passed, version of ObamaCare. After that he has to have another signing ceremony for the reconciliation measure for the plan to work.
This is a very complicated procedure being used to pull a fast one on the American people.
“Deemed” My A**. I hope we send the Dem’s into oblivion for the next several decades.
The more disreputable pedigree this deeming pile of crap has the better.
Kick most of the Democrats out the next two elections and repeal the bill with a super majority and a probable Republican President as well.
.
Carnage in the streets is coming!
.
A vote for the rule is a vote for Obamacare period — pass it on
Let’s ‘deem’ the Deemocrats voted out of office!!
Euphemistically speaking, I feel like we’re at that point of having the gun put to our back in the parking lot. The next thing will be the hood over our head. Then we’ll be told to get in the trunk. Once in the trunk, it will be too late.
Dems voting for changes to a bill deemed to have passed without a vote should be deemed unfit to enter the chambers of congress. They will be deemed unfit to represent after this charade of parlimantary flimflam that flys in the face of the Constitution and congressional tradition.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but from my reading, the Constitution does not define what is needed for a bill to pass the House or Senate. It says that the House and Senate can mandate their own rules. It does say that there is needed a 2/3 majority to override a veto.
I agree that this is an ultra-sleazy move, but it may not be obviously unconstitutional. If the Dems try this, every last one of them need to be called out for it on election day.
When I heard the allegation that pubs had used this in the past, I was screaming at the tv: “Who, when, for what - I want links!”
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. 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. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
I think if they go that far there will be riots coast to coast then zero will want to impose martial law, something that I believe he wants. Then he could use his private army that he has talked about while he trained and funded ACORN. I believe this whole whole administration is trying to destroy America from within. I would love to see the lot doing the perk walk, kicking and screaming on their way to prison.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Here's the thing: If passed, Obamacare doesn't go into effect immediately. Major elements will be not be implemented for several years. That's more than enough time to challenge the constitutionality of the self-executing rule if it's used to pass the bill. It's also more than enough time to challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
It's going to take another 2 or 3 years to finally kill this bill, and the death blow probably will come from the Supreme Court.
Good reading and I agree 1000 %
I kind of hope they use this “Slaughter Rule”, since it seems it would be a lot easier to get the courts to throw the bill out that way. Certainly much easier than getting the Republicans to repeal it when they get a majority back.
Used before by Republicans? I myself have heard this stated several times by the leftist media YET I wonder why a supposed precedented procedural tactic would be recently renamed the "Slaughter Solution" -I am not drinking the koolaid I guess? Maybe next, just for the fun of it, "they" will rename reconcilliation to the "Pelosi Solution"? I guess voting is now deeming AND when OZero signs the demmed deemed abomination he will in essence be redeeming...
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.