Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pelosi, Slaughter went to court against GOP in 2005 case that exposes Slaughter Solution flaw
Washington Examiner ^ | 03/16/2010 | Mark Tapscott

Posted on 03/19/2010 8:00:10 AM PDT by autumnraine

You've been hearing a lot this week about the Slaughter Solution, the rule devised by House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York whereby the House would pass an Obamacare reconcilliation bill via a rule that "deems" the chamber to have voted for the Senate version of Obamacare even though no such recorded vote was actually taken.

It's been dubbed the "Slaughter Solution in the media. I prefer to call the Alice in Wonderland way of passing Obamacare.

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase. But there was a minor difference between the two chambers' versions resulting from a clerical error.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, citing the difference between the two texts? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here's the argument they made:

"Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

"Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

"Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses." (Emphasis added)

It's important to be clear that the issue before the court was whether a minor text correction was sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both chambers of Congress must pass the exact same bill. In this 2005 case, the court ruled the minor correction was acceptable.

The deeming of an entire bill to have been passed without a prior recorded vote goes far beyond a minor text correction, so the constitutional principle clearly would be violated by the Slaughter Solution.

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter

If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it's the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.

Of course, there is one major difference between 2005 and 2010. Debt limit increases are routine in Congress and have been for decades. But to place the American private health care system under government control -- effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy -- that has never been done before.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; congress; deemandpass; healthcare; obama; obamacare; pelosi; slaughter

1 posted on 03/19/2010 8:00:11 AM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Where’s that “Our corruption doesn’t count” picture??


2 posted on 03/19/2010 8:04:36 AM PDT by pillut48 ("Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right."-Gov.Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Vote Slaughter now, get slaughtered later!


3 posted on 03/19/2010 8:06:38 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Didn’t know this. It will be a crime if we don’t jail people such as Pelosi and Slaughter.


4 posted on 03/19/2010 8:07:06 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Photobucket
5 posted on 03/19/2010 8:10:55 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

6 posted on 03/19/2010 8:13:17 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; SE Mom; hoosiermama; maggief; penelopesire; rintense; Liz; autumnraine

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter


7 posted on 03/19/2010 8:13:18 AM PDT by onyx (BE A MONTHLY DONOR - I AM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

8 posted on 03/19/2010 8:20:32 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

what a two-faced babbling lying thief who has sold America out.


9 posted on 03/19/2010 8:22:39 AM PDT by TheDailyChange (Politics,Conservatism,Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Thanks for posting this—it pulls together some information I had gotten from different sources and was thinking about.

My question to the Dems, and particularly Slaughter and Pelosi as they were apparently plaintiffs in the lawsuit, is that if they believe that exact text is required, are they not violating their oath to preserve and protect adn defend the constitution by voting to “deem” the Senate bill passed in legislation containing different language? Maybe more of a stretch, if our Constitutional Law Professor TOTUS signs such a bill into law, would he have violated his oath? Inquiring minds want to know!


10 posted on 03/19/2010 8:59:24 AM PDT by vrwconspiracist (The Tax Man cometh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vrwconspiracist
"Maybe more of a stretch, if our Constitutional Law Professor TOTUS signs such a bill into law, would he have violated his oath? Inquiring minds want to know!"

To me it sounds more like a gang rape of the constitution.

11 posted on 03/19/2010 9:10:38 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Me thinks the DEEM-o-Rats think the Constitution is just another law that they can change on a whim...or just ignore. Time for the states to take back control.


12 posted on 03/19/2010 10:28:08 AM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson