Posted on 03/12/2010 10:00:09 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
We are apparently at crunch point on the efforts of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi in the House, and Majority Leader Reid in the Senate to pass by whatever means necessary the “health reform” bill. In the national debate, however, no one has asked whether the Supreme Court has any role in this matter. It does, and it may be definitive.
There is a question of what the bill is, since there are many versions, and several are under wraps. The opponents of the bill, whatever it is, includes Democrats and Republicans who believe that the bill is ill-thought takeover of one sixth of the national economy that will increase the cost of medical care, decrease its quality, and severely damage the national economy.
But this column is not about the merits or demerits of whatever is in the bill. It is about the methods being used to push it through Congress and the consequences of ways of getting around normal, legislative passage (Article I, Section 7, US Constitution).
At this point, it looks like the House will use the Slaughter Rule to “pass” it through the House without ever having a vote on it. The about-to-be-invented Rule is named for the Congresswomen who is the Chair of the Rules Committee and came up with this idea.
Provided that the House passes the bill, then the Senate is expected to pass it by majority rule under “reconciliation.” This is a known process under a Rule proposed by the Dean of the Senate, Robert Byrd, in the mid-80's. It was developed to prevent budget bills for spending from being tied up by filibusters in the Senate. It does provide for passage in the Senate by majority vote.
However, it also provides that any provision which is not primarily budgetary cannot be included unless it is approved by three fifths of the Senate. That works out to 60 votes, the same as the filibuster rule itself.
Well then, who is it that decides whether a given provision in the bill is budgetary, or not? That would be the Parliamentarian of the Senate. When such arcane questions arise in the Senate, the Parliamentarian is asked to give his opinion. But then, the person in the Chair, the Vice President unless he has given up the Chair to someone else, issues the final ruling.
Even then, the process is not quite done. Any Senator can appeal the ruling of the Chair. The body then votes by a majority to uphold or reject the ruling of Chair. So let us assume that Vice President Biden is in the Chair and he rejects the opinion of the Parliamentarian, and a simple majority of the Senate goes along with that. Then the bill containing whatever, and bearing the title of “Heath Care Reform” will go to the President for his signature. Is that the end of road?
Not quite.
Under normal circumstances, courts will not interfere with the decisions of a House of Congress, or a house of a state legislature, when it concerns the internal rules of that house. Most state constitutions, like the US Constitution, give explicit authority for houses of the legislature to adopt and apply their own operating rules. But like all other rules of conduct, this one of forbearance of courts from legislative rules has its exception.
Does anyone remember Adam Clayton Powell, Jr,? He was a corrupt, Democrat Member of the House from Harlem in New York City. He was regularly reelected by wide margins, but because of legal complications in New York, he was subject to arrest if he set foot in his District, any day except Sundays. So, he would preach in the Abyssinian Baptist Church, and spend the balance of the week either in Washington, or Bimini.
In short, he was a disgrace, and the House wanted shut of him. So, in 1966, after he was reelected, the House simply refused to seat him. Powell then sued, because the House had not followed its own rules. In Powell v. McCormack in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the House had not followed its own rules. It ordered the House to seat Powell, and then expel him by the specified two-thirds vote, if they so choose.
So, there is a role for the Supreme Court when the Houses of Congress flagrantly and critically break their own rules. The Court can, should, and probably will throw out as unconstitutional – for breaking their own rules – whatever “health care reform” bill Congress purports to pass, by cheating.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced law in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. His latest book, on Thomas Paine, will be published this year. www.TheseAreTheTimes.us Reach him here: John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
- 30 -
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.
A few points to be taken here: Note the use of "ALL" cases... no exceptions. You cannot make a rule to circumvent a clause of the constitution, without driving us to anarchy. Then, a requirement that the yes/no names be entered in the journal... as it says "shall", as opposed to might or may or should. The Slaughter-rule would send a bill to -19 without this very specific section being followed, by letter nor by spirit.
Thanks again for another informative post. I have followed you on FR for almost ten years now, and you have always delivered.
Woody
John / Billybob
>> The Court can, should, and probably will throw out as unconstitutional – for breaking their own rules <<
101% agreed that they most certainly “should.”
I have the impression however that SCOTUS’ precedents on standing have been extremely restrictive when it comes to challenging congressional actions. For example, there’s no chance that the Court would grant standing to an ordinary citizen-voter like you or me.
So who do you think would have standing to bring a successful suit?
John / Billybob
Thanks. Bummer.
Can you dig around the law books and see if they’ve committed any hanging offenses? :)
Is anyone surprised?
What did they expect when a majority of ‘Progressives’ were elected?
Standing will not be a problem in this case.
John / Billybob
Well given that our government is suppose to be the people and by majority vote the people gave power to a bunch of strangers just where does anyone expect to reclaim that authority?
The biggest weakness I see on the horizon is the LACK of legal expertise by and in ‘conservative’ circles. The supreme had to issue the oath twice and I sure am not expecting them to fix what they have ignored regarding the stranger they willingly gave power and authority to RULE over US.
John / Billybob
My thought as well. Blatantly unconstitutionality by itself doesn't necessarily stop Congress, but with this rule, the precedent is set that either house can essentially ignore the other and pass into law whatever they choose, assuming the President signs it. The entire fabric of our government is then destroyed.
Or can they "deem" that the President has signed it, as well?
Slightly off the subject but a Constitutional question.
Suppose that a few years from now it is discovered that Obama was in fact NOT a natural born citizen and was not eligible to be president.
Are the laws, executive orders, acts he signed null and void? Or would they still be in effect?
Who has standing to file that suit ?
(If you live long enough) what goes around usually does come around.....It sure would be fitting if Roberts puts the nail in Obama's administrative objectives.
Bump.
It would be poetic justice.
Section 7. Clause 1 "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... Clause 2 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;... 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" With the Slaughter trick, they will have not satisfied several of these constitutional requirements to provide a passed bill to the president. Mark Levin went on a tear on this yesterday.
Yeah, a real Mr Roberts goes to Washington movie for a new Jimmy Stewart to play!
Well put.
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.