Slaughter Preps Rule To Avoid Direct Vote On Senate Bill (House to pass ObamaCare without vote!)

National Journal via NRO's The Corner ^ | 10 March 2010 | Anna Edney, with Billy House and Dan Friedman contributing

[Pilsner]

Democracy by Slaughter [Daniel Foster]

The sense around here for the last week or so has been that "only the House vote matters" in deciding the fate of Obamacare. But what if the Democrats can pass the bill with no House vote at all?

Astoundingly, House Democrats appear to be preparing to do just that:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. (emphasis added)

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it," she said. . . .

House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states. "We're well beyond that," Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.

That the Democrats could take this extraordinary step to avoid passing the Senate bill tells you that they have zero trust in the Senate to pass reconciliation "fixes," and zero trust in the president not to sign the Senate bill should it reach his desk and a reconciliation effort collapse. But most crucially, it gives the lie — in a big, big way — to the Democratic narrative that health-care reform should and will be finished via simple "majority rule," and not bound up in the arcane rules of the United States Senate.

The National Journal story is at http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hca_20100310_2179.php?mrefid=site_search, but it is available only to subscribers.

[mo]

We.the. People are gonna be forced into going down into the gates of he%^ itself on Capitol Hill and show our employees personally and in exquisite detail, their JOB DESCRIPTION.....READING and VOTING on legislation.

[ALPAPilot]

Meaning that the Supreme Court has ruled that once the leaders of the House and Senate formally attest that a bill was passed by the House and Senate,

Leaders from both parties?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thanks. There is the way things should be, and the way that they are. I saw a video of Murtha when he was presiding, ruling that the Dems had a majority of votes when they clearly did not.

Leftists will try to get away with as much as they can if not stopped.

[JohnBrowdie]

this has become a holy quest to satisfy the democrat’s perverse sense of social justice. to hell with the economy, to hell with the constitution, and to hell with democracy.

there is not an appreciable difference between what we are seeing right now and hugo chavez nationalizing private industry via decree.

[llevrok]

Like pre-war Nazi Germany....

[savedbygrace]

BTW, the teeth line was a joke.

[hal ogen]

Just DO IT, you LIB/DIM bast**ds and bi**hes! We, the people, well bring you to justice. Truth, Justice and the American Way. You can’t have our country and our freeedom, you Freakazoid moonbats.

[Pilsner]

One poster at Redstate opines that the Supreme Court would overturn this:

And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts.

Frankly I don't think he makes a very good case. The Supreme Court authority he cites, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), states that one house on Congress can't veto an act of the Executive Branch, because, among other things, it violates the requirement of bicameralism, or that each house of Congress must vote, recording the "Ayes" and "Nays" of each member, to pass legislation.

Here, the House would vote on a rule, and make believe that an "Aye" for the rule is an "Aye" to concur with the Senate version of Obama Care. The intent is clearly fraudulent. But I still suspect that the Supreme Court would look at the provision of the Constitution that says each house of Congress may set its own rules of debate, and say that, per the "enrolled bill" rule, it will not second guess the leadership of Congress.

Representative government presupposes a certain amount of good faith. If a temporary majority of the members of each house of Congress are willing to seat congressional candidates who clearly lost, or reapportion House seats based on fraudulent census numbers, or claim that a bill has been passed when it has not, then the Courts can do very little.

My most optimistic thought is that people have paid attention to process in this debate. The Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback, while sporting large dollar signs, are nothing new in Congress. What is new is that the public has paid attention, and clearly recognized a corrupt act for what it is. Playing "Make Believe" that Obama Care has passed the House, when it has not, is both corrupt, and clearly recognizable. The Democrats do this at their peril. Old Toe Sucker, Dick Morris, has moved the ceiling for their possible House losses to 80. If they pull this stunt, he may be right.

[Pilsner]

Leaders from both parties?

The Speaker of the House and the Vice President, or President Pro-Tem of the Senate.

[chilltherats]

It would also heavily bring out the rat base in November because there would be 24/7 coverage of the pubs “OBSTRUCTING.” Red meat.

[tallyhoe]

Section. 7.
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.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

[Notwithstanding]

“Pro-Choice Slaughter: Abortion Bloodbath in Congress”

[workerbee]

This is OUTRAGEOUS.

No, wait a minute. This makes something outrageous look reasonable! Death, a writhing painful death, to every ONE of these TRAITORS!

(Political death, of course. Yeah.)

[Munz]

let them pass this crap like they want to, unconstitutionally.

they suffer because it goes to court and gets thrown out.
Screw these fascist POS.

Do what you want, we will find the judges to over rule the garbage, there is still a SCOTUS and if they fail us then the constitution no longer protects anyone. Including the politicians of this oligarchy.

[TexasNative2000]

So instead of backroom deals in the Senate, which the Scott Brown election scuttled, they’ll settle for backroom deals in the House.

[Uncledave]

Very shrewd thought

[OldDeckHand]

"Can they get away with this? "

I really don't know. We are in entirely uncharted water here. Clearly, they're going well beyond breaking the spirit of the reconciliation process, and are breaking the rules. BUT, the Constitution is clear - it leaves it entirely up to the Congress to pass (or enforce) it's own rules. In other words, the sausage makers (Congress) decides how the sausage is made, and the Supremes review the final product.

I'm not sure if this Supreme Court, or any Supreme Court is going to review the process of how this bill was passed - but it will surely hear challenges to the bill itself.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The parliamentarian apparently ruled that they could not pass a reconciliation bill before Obama signed the senate bill. Who knows how he would rule if Pelosi :deemed” that the senate bill had passed without voting on it.

It’s really disturbing that Americans would elect those Dems in the first place.

[OldDeckHand]

"The parliamentarian apparently ruled that they could not pass a reconciliation bill before Obama signed the senate bill. Who knows how he would rule if Pelosi :deemed” that the senate bill had passed without voting on it."

Don't forget, irrespective of what the Parliamentarian rules, Biden - as Senate President - may unilaterally overrule the Parliamentarian. I wouldn't think he'd be stupid enough to do that, but I didn't it would get this far.

As for the passing in the House without really voting maneuver, I'm really just speechless. They're so brazen and so full of hubris to even mention this as a possibility, to say nothing of actually doing it. If they actually do it, it will be the single greatest abuse of Legislative authority in the history of the Republic.