Posted on 03/17/2010 7:18:01 AM PDT by Cboldt
“Pardon the rough edges.”
By you or by the Deemocrats?
This will sink them, either way. Deems will be “slaughtered”...
Don’t they still have to vote on this? What’s the difference between voting for this and 0bamacare?
Should be that Congress and the Senate don’t have to deem or vote or debate any bill. Should be sufficient that Obama just deem/declare any new idea that strikes his fancy to be law-of-the-land. Much historical presidence for it...
[Agreed to September 30, 2009] Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate $ (H.R. 2918) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections: ...
See H.Res.772 (the rule), and
the legislative timeline on HR 2918 as well as
the legislative timeline of H.Con.Res.191
Granted, the substance of the example is minutia (corrections, no substance); but this form of action involves a correlation between an underlying bill (HR 2918), a concurrent resolution that modifies the underlying bill as well as instructs the Clerk, etc.; and a deeming clause in the House Resolution (the rule) so that H.Con.Res.191 was not voted on. "Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 772, H. Con. Res. 191 is considered passed House."
My rough edges, so "by me."
“My rough edges, so “by me.””
I thought it was nice work!
The post is meant to be describing the passage of Obamacare, according to the "deem scheme," "Slaughter Strategy," or whatever one chooses to call the current event.
Popular wisdom is that the legislative action is unconstitutional, and popular wisdom is based on at least one fundamental false assumption, that when corrected, radically changes ones perception.
In a nutshell, the president can only sign a bill that has been validly voted on by each legislative branch. It is no longer a bill when it has been jimmied AFTER it has been voted on. At that point it is no longer a valid bill. That is why a president can not line item veto anything, because when he strikes anything out it is no longer the valid voted on bill that was sent to him.
In other words -- the whole mess is blatantly un-Constitutional.
Hmmm....we can now call them DEEMOCRATS just to be sure they can’t hide and the people NEVER forget.
“If they can run a president whose qualifications are of questionable validity and win, they can probably run a very questionable piece of legislation and think they can get it passed....”
Damn good point. Make-believe American as president...make-believe legislation.....right up there with skittel-pooping unicorns......
You have a point, but you have only begun to engage the issue. Article I, Section 7 requires that for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law. “Deem to have passed” is not the same as “passed,” and the difference may be enough to negate the fruit of any such process.
thanks for putting this out here for us to see.
I think, however, it speaks volumes that we are at this point. If Obama care could be passed in a straightforward vote, then the House would have that straightforward vote, in a procedure that we all understand.
I think the Dems. have brought the controversy on themselves, by using a scheme like this to pass a bill which wouldn’t be able to pass otherwise.
I think there are two issues -— one is the use of this technique, and one is Democrats being able to defend the use of it.
Thanks for the kind compliment. I'm sure the message (of the post) could be conveyed more simply and reliably, but I tried to make it more or less a paint-by-numbers affair.
I'm neither surprised, nor amused by the shoddy reporting and lack of basic research that the public has to suffer through. The volume of "it's unconstitutional" spew the past few days is substantial, yet little if any of it noticed that "reconciliation" is a concurrent resolution - or even the fact that it is a concurrent resolution, matters.
"Two bills collapse into one," resolves the issue.
Deems will be “slaughtered”...
Pelosi won’t be able to hide any of these bastards in the voting booth.
“Hmmm....we can now call them DEEMOCRATS just to be sure they can’t hide and the people NEVER forget.”
Exactly...this is the insult to our constitution and personal liberties that should NOT be ignored. The Deems need to be “Slaughtered” for this.
Great description of a process that has never before been used to pass major legislation. This is sort of like Schummer stating publically that he would like to change to rules of the Senate to staight majority rule (i.e. no 60 vote requirement, no fillibuster available to the minority party).
If the bill doesn’t become law utilizing this parlimentarian trick, how does this propel it to the desk of POTUS? At some point, it seems to me, there must be some departure from existing rules and precedent for “deem-and-pass” to be contemplated.
Personally, I’m guessing they back off this approach because it’s political suicide, and they will issue a statement saying they batted it around a bit but never seriously considered using it. Duplicitous bas$%^ds that they are.
This keeps it pretty simple;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
But your work is for the serious debunker...very nice.
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.
Problem is, with the "deem" procedure, no "Yeas" or "Nays" or "Names" will be recorded in the "Journal" of the House of Representatives for the bill. Hence, it is an un-Constitutional procedure.
IANAL, but just a citizen who seeks to understand our founding Document and live by it.
The barrier to that is the Senate's chronic abuse of the privilege of unlimited debate. In a properly functioning deliberative body, once a members has adopted a position, the person agrees to vote up or down. The Senate's use the "need more debate" excuse is utter bullshit - every one of them has a position and is ready to vote. If they voted, a simple majority would result in passing the reconciliation.
-- I think there are two issues -— one is the use of this technique, and one is Democrats being able to defend the use of it. --
As a practical matter, they've really stepped in it. I'm glad for that.
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.