[Steelfish]

This article is worth a whole unedited read. McConnell elaborates thus:

"Defenders of the Democratic strategy say that a self-executing rule has been used many times before by both parties. But never in this way.

Most of the time a self-executing rule is used to incorporate amendments into a pending bill without actual votes on the amendments, where the bill is then subject to a final vote by the House and Senate. That usage may be a dodge around House rules, but it does not violate the Constitution.

I am not aware of any instance where a self-executing rule has been used to send one bill to the president for signature and another to the Senate for consideration by means of a single vote."

[bagman]

I was good friends with Judge McConnell when we were both in the same lodge of the Order of the Arrow in Boy Scouts many years ago. His brilliance was readily apparent then. It is a shame that he will never be Justice McConnell.

[randita]

Will wavering House members want to use this procedure when there is a nontrivial probability that the courts will render their political sacrifice wasted effort? To hazard that risk, the House leadership must have a powerful motive to avoid a straightforward vote.

[Lmo56]

This approach appears unconstitutional. Article I, Section 7 clearly states that bills cannot be presented to the president for signature unless they have been approved by both houses of Congress in the same form. If the House approves the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill, it will fail that requirement.

Additionally, in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens [writing for the majority] stated that the "Presentment Clause" [Aticle I, Section 7] is EXPLICITLY clear.

A bill is originated in one house, then approved by the other house [in the EXACT same textual form]. The bill then goes to the President for signature. Only AFTER the bill has been signed is it law.

ONLY then can the law can be repealed or amended in a separate bill ...

[ArmyTeach]

archive

[Elsiejay]

Does it matter? The Constitution is not self-enforcing. By the time a challenge,if accepted by the Supremes, gets argued, researched, argued, et cetera, et cetera, the Radical Transformers will have enacted by means of imaginative applications of Obama’s autocratic rules, deceptions, end runs, and un-ratified appointments of Enforcers, so many new laws and rules that the deed will have been done.

[GregoTX]

Not only is the "slaughter" method unconstitutional, but so is the actual bill.

Remember Federalism?

No where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given Authority to regulate doctor care or insurance.
If the Constitution does not give Congress that power... then the 10th Amendment says it is a State issue.
If people want commie care, talk to your State reps, not the Federal ones.

[bjcintennessee]

Ping

[Danae]

That’s a great article.

[Danae]

This was in the comments section.

Can anyone else tell me whats interesting in this comment. Well there are a couple things, but read it for yourself:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* Dave Cavena replied:

Marcia: Here’s SCOTUS on the Constitutionality of Congress managing healthcare:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

I think it’s a safe bet SCOTUS Justices have read and understand the Constitution, right?

Here’s a part of the decision for you, all quoted from the SCOTUS decision. Pay particular attention to item #2:

1. Any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power but solely to the achievement of something plainly within the power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. P. 268 U. S. 17.

2. Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress. P. 268 U. S. 18.

3. Incidental regulation of such practice by Congress through a taxing act, like the Narcotic Law, cannot extend to matters plainly inappropriate and unnecessary to reasonable enforcement of a revenue measure. P. 268 U. S. 18.