Posted on 03/18/2010 11:41:18 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
I'll be honest. I had started to wonder whether this Slaughter Rule business was a bait-and-switch. I couldn't imagine that, with the pounding Democratic leadership have taken over the deem-and-pass strategy, there was any profit left in pushing it. After all, the point was to provide Democrats with political cover, via procedural obscurity, for a vote in favor of the Senate bill. But the procedure is no longer obscure and the cover is now a fig leaf.
That's why I find it genuinely amazing that the House just defeated a Republican measure to block the Slaughter Rule by a vote 222 to 203.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Well, we have them on record. Not sure about whether it was a good tactical move.
Yep, to hell with the Constitution, all ahead for tyranny.
If 222 House Dems. are officially on the record as being in favor of using the Slaughter House rule, doesn’t that imply that these 222 will vote that way? With 216 needed to pass, they seem to have enough now. Am I missing something? This is a key test vote on where things stand, isn’t it?
So 222 Democrats support 0bamacare.
The curious thing is ‘why’? If they have 222 votes, they can pass the Senate bill as is, without the BS tactics. And if some of them want to use the Slaughter rule as cover and then say they voted against the bill, I don’t think it will fly.Plus the procedure may not stand up to a court challenge.
222 members essentially just voted for the Obamacare.
Yep. I was taken aback by that number - 222.
It's over Jim, we're dead.
The term “deem” is used precisely once in the Constitution under Article V regarding Amendments to the Constitution. In part, it reads: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution…”.
It is obvious that the use of the term “deem” in the Constitution is the same as the common usage: “To have as an opinion; to judge.” (Example: “He deemed it was time for a change.”) In the case of Article V, the way it is determined that both houses deem it necessary to propose (not ratify) an Amendment is that both houses muster a two thirds vote of its members in favor of a declaration that the proposal of an Amendment is necessary. This is the same as the Congress saying: “It is our opinion that it is necessary to propose this Amendment.” The same as saying: “We judge that it is necessary to propose this Amendment.” The same as saying: “We DEEM that it is necessary to propose this Amendment.” Their officially declared judgment (their “deeming”) that it is necessary to propose this Amendment in no way ratifies the Amendment. It merely qualifies a proposal as being a legitimate candidate for ratification.
Some might wonder: “Uh oh, maybe the House can deem the Senate’s bill to have passed. After all, if it can be deemed that the proposal of a Constitutional Amendment is necessary the very deeming of which makes that proposal a legitimate candidate for ratification, then it sounds like the Congress can certainly deem things as so.”
Here you must pay very close attention to not only the OBJECT of the deeming but also to the VERACITY of the deeming. Under Article V, the object of the deeming is: the necessity of proposing an Amendment. But notice that whether it is true that there is such a necessity is determined by a clear Constitutional standard. Article V requires a two thirds majority vote in order for it to be true that it is necessary to propose an Amendment. In abiding by the Constitutional procedure to perform an act of deeming, it is logically impossible for a chamber of Congress to be factually incorrect in regards to what it has deemed. That is, it cannot be wrong in its judgment (its deeming) that a proposed Amendment is necessary. Either there is a two thirds majority that deems it necessary to propose an Amendment or there is not. – This is by Constitutional definition regarding changes to itself.
Aside from the necessity to propose Amendments, there is absolutely no other issue where there can be a Constitutional determination that a Congressional act of deeming is true. Regarding any other issue, we must look at whether Congress’s act of deeming (it’s judging that such and such is the case) corresponds to real events in order to determine whether its deeming is accurate and true.
This brings us to what it would mean if the Representatives chamber were to vote on a declaration that it had deemed the Senate’s Health Care Bill to have passed. Well, since obviously they have yet to pass the Senate’s bill, there declaration would simply be false as a matter of fact. Congress might also deem that there have definitely been times in recent years when the weather was rainy. Or they might deem that the Eifel Tower is in Paris. In such cases their deeming would be accurate, and they could cheer out loud for themselves. But if Congress were to deem that a Solar Eclipse happened on March 17th 2010, they would simply be wrong – although they would probably still cheer out loud for themselves.
Consider that the Slaughter solution is referred to as the “Deem and Pass” option. But that is exactly backwards. It is factually incorrect to claim that you have deemed something to have passed before it has passed. The language they are considering is literally to the effect of: “…under these conditions the House shall have deemed [the Senate bill] to have passed…” – That just contradicts reality. Now if they were to implement a “Pass and Deem” option, that would be no problem. It would just be silly. Under a “Pass and Deem” scenario, after Congress passed the bill, what would be the point of voting on a declaration stating they had in fact passed it? Even if that declaration of deeming happen to fail, the bill would still have passed, and if signed by the President would have the force of law.
When the Congress (almost always in conjunction with the President) creates a law: it has issued a command. The Congress commands that particular language is now law which will be enforced by gun-toting police. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to issue these commands as to what the law will be.
By falsely claiming that they have already issued a command creating law and then pretending that this false claim is itself a creation of law, they will have perpetrated a grotesque abuse on the Constitution. Worse than unconstitutional, this abuse will be despotic. It will be a malicious contradiction of the American experiment.
[PS: Within a strict Constitutional framework, the term “deem” as it applies to both chambers of Congress requires a two thirds majority and only results in proposals – not a laws.]
Hmmm... you make a good point, Gonzo. Damn, I was feeling pretty optimistic today until I saw this...
They are afraid to actually pass the Senate Bill, because the Messiah will just sign it into law, without reconciliation.
House Democrats need this perversion of the process because not even a rat trusts a rat.
Health care is going to be so terrible here, people might actually flock to Canada in hopes of getting something better. THAT is how bad its going to get.
Because the don't have anywhere near 160 votes to just pass the Senate bill (H.R. 3590) alone. They unions won't allow it. The unions are already caving on the Cadillac Tax, but they aren't going to cave on the Cadillac Tax as it exists in the H.R. 3590.
This is about unions. It always has been, and it always will be in the DNC.
Not necessarily....some of these Dems may WANT the Slaughter Rule for political cover to vote nay. Then they can vote Nay and say that it was about the “process” and not about health care.
Names! We want Names! Come November these names need to be circulated! I know without even asking how Mary Landrieu voted that treasonous witch.
I think they are still trying to work out the logistics.
Which Rats must fall on thier swords, which Rats they can afford to let vote against the bill but still get it approved, and what they will give those Rats who commit political Seppuku in return for their sacrifice.
They are bargaining things away.
Obama probably concelled his trip to Indonesia til June because he knows Healthcare will pass and this but step 1 towards disenfranchising real Americans and he has to be around for step 2: Immigration “reform”.
why do you peddle doom and gloom ?
Maybe - voting on a rule is considered a matter of party discipline. No majority party ever wants the minority to be able to dictate the rules/procedures for that legislative body.
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.