Without question; the Democrat party is the party of TYRANNY!

[shagdrum]

House dems to 'Slaughter' opponents to pass reform
Rick Moran
This is an exercise in the application of pure, unrestrained power. Words fail at a time like this when the very nature of democracy - voting for or against something - is tossed ruthlessly aside and tyranny is substituted:

The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter's scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply "deeming" the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.​

Not even one of those "allinfavorsayIallopposednotheeyeshaveitnextorderofbusiness."

This is Politburo kind of stuff - and that's insulting the commies. At least they had a rigged vote. We don't even get that on Obamacare.

Yes, this is tyranny of the majority. Is it constitutional? Who's to say it isn't? History shows that even if the GOP took this in extremis to the Supreme Court, it is likely that SCOTUS will wash its hands of the matter. Our robed mandarins do not like to "interfere" in the business of the legislatures. Since, at bottom, this is a rule change and thus would be considered an internal House matter, I would say that the odds are very low that the Supremes would even take the matter under review.

There is no precedent that I know of for "deeming" a bill to have been passed simply by waving a magic gavel - certainly none relating to a measure with such enormous consequences for American liberty and the economic well being of its citizens. The question is, are they serious, or is this just another trial balloon that Pelosi is sending up?

Time to get out your thesaurus and find a lot of synonyms for "anti-American," "dictatorial," and other choice epithets to rain down on the Democrats. I doubt whether we can shame them into changing their minds if this is indeed the route they will take to cramming Obamacare down our throats. But calling them what they are, loud and clear, will at least put us on the right side of history.

Will the last Congressman who cares about freedom please turn out the lights before leaving the House?

 

[shagdrum]

All allusions to communism, fascism, etc. clearly apply to this bunch...

 

[fossten]

What ever happened to "Let's give it an up or down vote?"

Why not just declare Obama King and let him issue his will by decree and dispense with the pretense...

 

[Calabrio]

Remember this one:
YouTube- An Insult To Our Democracy

This is an outrage.
If they move forward in this way, there will be horrific consequences.

 

[shagdrum]

“Passing Bills without Voting On Them”
by Dan Perrin

In the latest Mad-Magazine-like-Spy-vs.-Spy move, the House Dems have hatched a plan which reminds me of their ill-fated plan to delay seating Senator-elect Scott Brown until they had another ObamaCare vote on the Senate floor.

The Dems backed down. Similarly, they will back down from the Slaughter plan.

Former Speaker Gingrich describes the Slaughter plan in a tweet about a Brian Darling blog:

“Incredible. We’ve gone from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting on them.”​

They haven’t tried it yet, they are thinking about it.

But now that the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled the obvious, that you can not vote on a reconciliation measure if the bill you are attempting to reconcile has not been signed into law — the Slaughter plan looks both desperate and comical.

It is also (obviously) unconstitutional and will, if carried out, create a public outcry that will make burning witches at the stake look rational.

Just like the Black Spy thought the White Spy was caged and an easy target, the trillion dollar President and the Speaker find themselves without the votes and trying again to cheat the U.S. Constitution, public opinion and voters who want Congress to stop the irrational ObamaCare quest and start over. Their persistent problem is they keep causing their colleagues mortal political harm with their increasingly hare-brained-Slaughter schemes.

You know, like lets-use-reconciliation-to-pass-the-hated-Senate-ObamaCare-bill. (It’s no shock that Obama has hit his lowest Gallup poll approval rating ever.)

Ironically, the trillion dollar President has created a bi-partisan health care effort, it’s just that it’s a bi-partisan alliance against his bill. What is causing cognitive dissonance in the White House and among the Democratic Party’s cognoscenti is the simple fact that the only thing bi-partisan about ObamaCare is the opposition to it.

And the Slaughter plan of passing ObamaCare without voting on it, in the face of the Senate Parliamentarian decision, the current political anti-incumbent environment, the views of independent voters and seniors about ObamaCare is as if the Democrats are like the self-immolating monks protesting the Vietnam War.

The Speaker’s problem is that not every Democrat has signed up for the ObamaCare self-immolation school of Pelosi politics.

If the Dems actually try the Slaughter (no pun intended) plan, Americans will burn down the Dems’ house. Really. No kidding.

In the meantime, the House Republicans should petition the Supreme Court to hear their case against the pass the bill without voting on it, should the Dems try it. The Supreme Court would quickly declare it unconstitutional. But just the fact that I am writing this sentence makes me feel like I am writing about a banana republic — you know — where the rules are ignored and a small minority is imposing draconian changes and hated laws on a public straining to also play by the rules.

But in banana republics, where leaders give the Constitution and the public the middle finger, the public eventually gets really very angry, and starts doing more than breaking windows. Something like this could persuade some that it is just not fair if only one side plays by the rules.

Meanwhile, outside of the Slaughter-Pelosi fantasy land, the news keeps getting worse for the Dems. The Hill ran a story today titled: “House Democrats’ ‘no’ votes are piling up as healthcare reform moves forward,” and Talking Points Memo reports another No is still at No.

An undecided who was not even listed on the NRCC whip count (meaning they did not think he would switch from Yes to No) but was listed in The Hill’s whip count as undecided, is sounding very much like a No vote, as Talking Points Memo reports.

And the Hispanic Caucus has seemed to learn their lesson from Rep. Stupak and Senator Lieberman — if you want a change that the House Leadership will not give you — take their bill hostage until they cave.

Of course, the Hispanic Caucus must shoot the hostage if the Leadership says No — and the perceived credibility on the shoot-the-hostage-part is really low for the Hispanic Caucus. Their beef is they want illegals to be included as beneficiaries in ObamaCare.

Regardless of whether or not you think the Hispanic Caucus has the cajones to pull the trigger, the Leadership is now faced with another pool of possible No votes against the Senate bill — just like the pro-lifers, maybe.

What is beginning to happen is pretty clear: since Members believe the leadership does not have the votes and ObamaCare will fail in the House — there is a line forming in front of No, so Members can get on the right side of their voters — the Speakers pleadings for her caucus to self-immolate notwithstanding.

 

[Calabrio]

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

They know if this becomes his WATERLOO he'll be a joke for the next 3 years.
We've got a LEADER that never lead anything. Rev James Manning will end up being RIGHT ALL ALONG. You can check Rev James Manning out on YOUTUBE

 

[Calabrio]

They know if this becomes his WATERLOO he'll be a joke for the next 3 years.
We've got a LEADER that never lead anything. Rev James Manning will end up being RIGHT ALL ALONG. You can check Rev James Manning out on YOUTUBE

I wouldn't suggest turning to Rev Manning for insightful political commentary. Calling him a "long legged mack daddy" is entertaining, but it kind of lacks depth.

This kind of tyrany isn't for short term political success. It's political suicide. It's much more sinister than that. It's ideological, it's radical. The health care bill is a trojan horse for their marxist agenda.

 

[shagdrum]

The Slaughter Solution and Other Acts of Desperation

Is it “end-game” time in the debate over what to do with American health care? The other day, some industrious blogger—it might have been The Drudge Report—posted an amusing list of headlines from the past year or so, each announcing that, at long last, we’d reached the “end game” in the debate over health. Just yesterday, President Obama said again that “the time to talk” was over: the time to vote had come.

He didn’t really mean that, of course, because were a vote taken now, his plan to have the government usurp a sixth of the U.S. economy and institute top-down socialized medicine in the Unite States would fail.

As a result, Team Obama has been exerting the old cerebellum to discover some way of passing the Democrats’ health care bill without, you know, precisely passing it. Even if you question their ethics, you have to admire their ingenuity. Last month it was “reconciliation”: that administrative tool was all the rage. A technique used to patch over budgetary anomalies was going to be hauled in to revolutionize a major social program that had no bipartisan support whatsoever.

That wasn’t going down with the public too well. So although reconciliation is still on the table (or, rather, up the Reid-Pelosi sleeve) the latest wheeze is “The Slaughter Solution,” named for Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY, “D,” of course). Would you like to enact some legislation without the inconvenience (to say noting of the accountability) of actually voting for it? The Washington Examiner explains how you can do it:

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself. ​

George Orwell, wouldst that you were here to witness this!

“Would that rationale fly with the public?” asks the Examiner. “Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare.”

Except, of course, that they don’t: as of last week 53 percent oppose the plan.

What we are seeing now may or may not be the end game in the debate over health care. There can be no doubt, however, that we are seeing an effort to make an end run—an end run around democracy and accountability. Obama and his mandarins think they know what’s best for you. Therefore, although they are willing to pay lip service to democracy, they are perfectly willing to subvert it if it suits their purposes.

Fortunately, more and more people are cottoning on to the statist assault on freedom that stands at the center of Obama’s effort to (as he put it just before the election) “fundamentally transform the Untied States of America.” One relative newcomer I’d like to introduce to my readers is the American Future Fund, a conservative, free-market organization that has been doing yeoman’s service educating the public about the Obama administration’s assaults on economic liberty and democratic accountability. Don’t miss their their latest ad on the hypocrisy of Democratic efforts to shut down debate on health care reform:

YouTube- AFF "Breathtaking" - Sen. Harry Reid

 

[shagdrum]

If you try the Slaughter Rule, you will lose the country. Not in November. In March.
by E Pluribus Unum

What we have here is a failure to communicate. At no time in American history has the ruling party so insistently striven to impose its iron will on such a loudly unwilling citizenry. They are not listening, and they will stop at nothing.

When flim-flammery fails, try intimidation.
When intimidation fails, try chicanery.
When chicanery fails, try illegal.
And when illegal fails, try unconstitutional.

Let’s recap the last year of the Democrats’ Health Care Takeover adventure. Why? Because it was fun, and we won:

• With 60% majorities in both House and Senate, and flush from victories on Porkulus and Cap-and-Trade, Obama and the media tried selling America on their signature issue - government health care takeover — with glib lies, fuzzy math, and blaming ‘evil’ insurance companies.
• FAIL – it smelled like a government takeover.
• They shut Republicans and their ideas out of all discussions, in order to shut down dissent.
• FAIL – America noticed, and so came the August recess fiasco. So also came 99.54% party discipline, as only Joe Cao (from a hyper-blue district) voted with the Democrats, to date.
• They skipped, dodged, and staged astroturfed townhalls.
• FAIL – Twitter. Internet. Americans found and crashed the meetings anyway.
• They sent their SIEU and ACORN thugs to intimidate ordinary outraged Americans.
• FAIL – People took their beatings. And brought video cameras.
• Obama and the media decided they had not made themselves clear. So, more speeches, ABC specials, and more blaming of insurance companies. And doctors
• FAIL – America actually HAD heard it right the first time. and polls really started to look nasty.
• They accused Republicans of just being obstructionists, having no alternative plans themselves.
• FAIL — Republicans were obstructing with the blessing of their constituents, and their always existing plans sounded a whole lot like cost-lowering free-market ideas. [correction, h/t Jeff Emanuel - Repubs lacked numbers to actually obstruct anything, which the press unerringly failed to ever point out
• Their own members began to revolt, so they were bribed and blackmailed
• FAIL – Americans reacted very badly to the Chicago way.
• They passed the Senate version on Dec 24 while America traveled and thought of loved ones.

At this point they really thought they had won this thing. Unfortunately for them, Americans are not like Russians, programmed to serve silently and cower in fear of their government.

It was just getting interesting.

• FAIL – America noticed anyway. McDonnell and Christie smoked VA and NJ governor elections. Scott Brown campaigned as “Mister 41″, and easily won the “Do it for Teddy” seat in deep-blue MA.
• They plotted to delay the seating of Scott Brown in order to get a bill passed.
• FAIL – once that was made public, they denied they would have considered such a dastardly thing.
• With America dead set against it……more speeches. And publicly dressing down the Supreme Court.
• FAIL – again, America already got the message, polls sunk even further, and wobbling Democrats were catching bloody hell from their constituents.
• With 60 out of the question and 216 shaky at best, they decided to break congressional rules and jam the bill through by “reconciliation”.
• FAIL – the shaky 216 started to look more like 200.
• With no more hopes of even passing the House, now they propose the Slaughter Rule — to declare the Senate bill passed without a vote.
• FAIL – just wait and see.

Now we’re up to date. Let us look at the United States Constitution, which even Democrats will grudgingly acknowledge as the supreme law of the land (h/t Dan Perrin and Leon Wolf), the over-arching, indisputable law of the land (bolding mine, and Leon’s):

Article 1, Section 7: (excerpt)
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. ​

In short, two quick and extremely easy points.

• The same bill has to pass both House and Senate. The exact bill, word for word.
• It passes by vote.

Which brings us to the Slaughter Rule, in which Democrats just flat-out defy the Constitution and declare a bill “passed” which has not been voted on. It’s been discussed at length here, here, and here, by constitutional scholars, veteran congressional experts, and other VSGs (very smart guys). Here’s the EPU’s Notes version:

Unable to pass the Senate bill in the House, unable to pass ANY bill in the Senate (thank you Massachusetts), and thwarted in their attempt at reconciliation parlor tricks, the Democrats have hatched a plan. The House will vote on and (presumably) pass a new bill, which is the Senate Bill with amendments. Call it House Bill #2. House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter will propose a rule deeming the Senate bill to be “passed”, the new rule will be voted on and (presumably) approved by the House, and the amended bill — House Bill #2 — will be sent to Obama to be signed into law.​

Yes, that was the short version.

Now, let’s talk about consequences.

The American public was at first peeved about this government power grab, leading to wildly entertaining August recesses for congressional Democrats. As the Dems shoved non-matching bills through House and Senate, America got positively miffed. Witness McDonnell, Christie, and Brown.

Now America is flat irritated. And if the Dems try sporting this blatant middle finger at the Constitution and America, we will all see what happens when America is finally angry. Like Dan Perrin, I think Democrats will back down before doing this. But we’ve both underestimated their stupidity several times in this process. Nothing’s a safe bet anymore.

Before this, Democrats were already going to lose HUGE in November. There are more House Democrats retiring in “safe” districts than there are Cincinnati Bengals and Dallas Cowboys in prison. But if they try this stunt, the ensuing electoral revolt will be epic and irreversible, resulting in a Democrat Party crippled so irredeemably that I predict a new center-left party will emerge in the next 10 years, attempting to shed the stench of scandal and disrepute that will be permanently connected to the Democrats. Most likely the partisan press will accelerate their own death spiral as they are unwilling to speak ill of the Democrats.

But that is November. What will happen in March?

Five things, the first three within days. I couldn’t say what order, because things will move pretty quickly. So I list them how my mind sorts them.

1. The Supreme Court will strike it down within days.

I don’t remember which of the 3 authors I cited said this (or maybe I heard it on the radio), so I don’t know who to cite. But every American has standing here, due to the exceedingly far reach of the Health Care Takeover bill. Somebody will sue. I predict GOP members of Congress will, and it will go straight to the Supreme Court. They will strike down the whole caboodle, and they will do it almost immediately. Probably 6-3, with Breyer and Kennedy voting with the originalists. Their ruling is very likely to include language extremely damning of the behavior of Democrats.

2. Numerous states will declare statutorily under the 10th Amendment that this law will be unenforceable within their borders.

I’m guessing 20 states. The move has been afoot for awhile anyway, and this blatant flouting of the Constitution will trigger the America-loving, freedom-loving instincts into bold (if rash) action. And while they’re at it, they’re going to say the same thing about everything emanating from the EPA.

3. There will be public anti-government outrage so great that it will boil into violence.

I do not condone this; it will be ugly and more than a little scary. Lest I give anybody fresh ideas, I will not expound upon it other than to say it will be directed, not generalized — directed at objects, property, and symbols of government, not at people. Although those who voted for this Slaughter Rule would be wise to perhaps hang around in Washington for awhile.

4. (Even more) new candidates opposing incumbent Democrats will come out of the woodwork.

Many already have, but many have considered, then declined. Many of those will change their minds, even in blue states. And new ones will pop up like dandelions. And a whole bunch of them will win. The leftist partisan national media currently think Republicans might, juuuuuuuust MIGHT, get 40 seats and the House back. Idiots. It was already going to be 80 and 8. But after this stunt, it might be 120 and 14. This is what happens when the entire center turns on a party.

5. State AGs will bring charges against sitting Congressmen for whatever they can plausibly pin on them.

Sedition is the actual crime (IMHO), and that’s a federal charge. But no USA will touch this, since they work for the president. Because members of Congress cannot be recalled, citizens will be thirsting for vengeance. Very loudly. State AG’s will be chomping at the bits to exact SOME form of payback, encouraged (or pushed) by their citizenry. Things like corruption, conspiracy, bribery, racketeering, tax fraud, and so on, will be easy indictments. As the last few months have shown, congressional Democrats have been so thoroughly corrupt for so long, nobody will even have to trump up anything.

. Republicans will shut down business in Congress until January 5.

Then it will REALLY get fun.

Democrats will lose the country days after they pull the Slaughter Rule. They’ll have their illegal law both flouted and overruled, their members will be subject to investigations and indictments, and not a single item of interest will be signed into law, nor will any appointment be approved, before January 5, when a hundred or more of them leave Washington for good.

 

[shagdrum]

Mark Levin pointed out on his radio show Thursday that if this passes, it will be a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen since the Civil War...

 

[fossten]

Bring it on biatch.

 

[Calabrio]

Mark Levin pointed out on his radio show Thursday that if this passes, it will be a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen since the Civil War...

Mark Levin's radio show is available online, legally-
http://www.marklevinshow.com/
It's a good show to listen to, particularly the last few days.

Article 1: Section 7
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; 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.


To paraphrase Levin:

"...a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our constitution, how we make law.
If this is done it will be the greatest constitutional crisis since the civil war. 100 times worse than Watergate. It would be law by fiat.
The mere discussion by leading officials of such a grotesque violation of the legislative function of congress puts us at the brink.

This is why we conservatives revere the constitution.
This is why we stress that the constitution's words have meaning...because otherwise we have anarchy that leads to tyranny.

We have an effort underway, by one of the most powerful chairman in congress, a woman who heads the rules committee...openly discussing gutting Congress.
And if this done, this is about as close to martial law as we'll ever get....

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. constitution than this, and the liberal media has essentially ignored it. It's not only absurd on it's face that these power hungry ideologue, party first, country second types, that would make the claim that house voted for something that they never voted on. It's not only absurd on it's face, it's blatantly unconstitutional."

 

[shagdrum]

Van Hollen Advises Silence on Unconstitutional ObamaCare Procedure
by Brian Darling

House leaders have scheduled a vote for next Friday or Saturday according to Politico on ObamaCare. Reports indicate that House leaders are planning to pass ObamaCare without a vote. Assistant to the Speaker Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) advised Democrats not to talk about the procedure to pass the bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has come up with a very complicated procedure to get ObamaCare to the President’s desk without House members having to vote directly on the bill. So much for the Constitution that says that a bill does not become a law until the House and Senate pass identical bills, and then the President signs that legislation.

Chris Frates at Politico writes about a Van Hollen leaked memo to Democrats:

The office of Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is the assistant to Speaker Pelosi, sent a memo to Democratic staffers today telling them to clear members’ schedule for next weekend, saying a vote could come as early as Friday or Saturday, and noting that it was no coincidence that President Obama pushed back his trip abroad from March 18 to March 21st.​

For those of you who didn’t believe the liberals in Congress were crazy enough to push forward with ObamaCareafter poll numbers continue to indicate that a vote for this bill is political death for many moderate Democrats, it is time to believe it. President Obama has delayed a trip overseas to continue this lobbying and PR campaign for his government centered approach to comprehensive health care reform for a reason. Pelosi has scheduled a vote for late next week after weeks of negotiating a procedure to pass the bill within the caucus. This is ObamaCare’s last stand with the President and Pelosi pulling out all the stops to get it passed.

It is not suprising that Van Hollen advised members to avoid any talk about the unconstitutional manner in which they are considering to pass the bill.

The Van Hollen memo also advised members to avoid talking about the process. “At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote — up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL,” the memo says. “People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.”​

The Constitution clearly states that the House and Senate have to pass a bill before it is send to the President. (See Article 1, Section 7) The House is expected to take up a rule that will deem the Senate passed version of ObamaCare to be passed without a vote upon a condition. The House will be drafting up a reconciliation measure to amend ObamaCare in a manner that avoids a Senate filibuster and skirts the requirement that reconciliation measures reconcile existing law to help balance the budget. This is all very complicated, but the bottom line is that Dems in the House have come up with a procedure to pass ObamaCare while protecting moderate Dems by avoiding a direct vote on the bill.

Leadership expects a CBO score on the reconciliation package by today or Monday. No decisions have been made on how the final process will unfold on the House floor, the memo says. So it appears Democrats are still grappling with whether they can use the process to pass the Senate bill without voting directly on the bill. Many Democrats view the Senate bill’s deals and policies as a toxic political mix that they would rather not endorse without first making changes to it.​

It is clear in this memo that they may back away from the unconstitutional procedure to pass ObamaCare, but it is on the table right now. Van Hollen understands that moderate Dems “would rather not endorse (i.e. vote on) without first making changes to (ObamaCare).” They want to use reconciliation to make changes to ObamaCare, but they don’t want to vote in favor of ObamaCare unchanged. They don’t seem to have the votes to pass ObamaCare with a direct vote and without a reconciliation measure accompanying that bill. The great irony is that no matter what procedure they attempt to use, the Senate passed version of ObamaCare will go to the Presidents desk unchanged after the House votes on a procedure.

Here is the Van Hollen timeline according to the memo published by Politico:

TODAY or MONDAY: CBO will publish final scores on legislative language

THEN: House Budget Committee must approve using the reconciliation process to pass this

THEN: The bill will go to the Rules Committee, rule will be constructed for consideration on the floor, and language will be posted online (on the Rules website) and the 72-hour clock will start. When this happens, we will start to have a better idea on what the process will be.

THEN: A Manager’s Amendment will be constructed that will make some final changes

THEN: The Manager’s Amendment will be posted online and the 72-hour clock will start (this may overlap with the 72-hour clock on the reconciliation language). When Manager’s Amendment is done final process decisions will be locked in.

THIS MEANS: We will likely vote Friday or Saturday. (As you probably saw, POTUS pushed back the departure for his Asian trip from Thursday the 18th to Sunday the 21st; this was not a coincidence.) The Speaker has publically committed to trying to get a vote on both the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill on the same day. They are still trying to work out the final process on this and much of what we do depends on what the Senate Parliamentarian decides. You may be receiving calls about the “Slaughter Rule” and other rumors about what the process will be. Again, please understand: no decision has yet been made on the process for consideration on the House floor.​

The United States Constitution is clear. The House has to vote on legislation before it can go to the President. Although Democrats will undoubtedly produce a long list of resolutions passed by Republicans to purportedly do the same thing, it seems like a clear violation of Article 1, Section 7 that states in part “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives.” A bill has not passed the House of Representatives if the House does not vote on it directly. Many will argue that this is a political question and the Courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. That maybe true, yet our Representatives and Senators have taken an oath to the Constitution and they should not proceed with a procedure that may be a violation of that oath.

Next week the House may have the final vote on a measure to pass ObamaCare. A debate on the constitutionality of the actions of the House should be part of any discussion on ObamaCare, because this procedure is going to have a dramatic impact on what makes it, or does not make it, to the President’s desk in the name of health care reform.

 

[shagdrum]

because it needs to be in this thread...

YouTube- Radio Host Calls for Expulsion of Rep. Slaughter

 

[shagdrum]

Levin on Representative Slaughter - and the Slaughter Rule
Clarice Feldman

Arguing that Slaughter is attempting an unprecedented violation of the constitution, Mark Levin in this audio clip, argues that the House Republicans should initiate expulsion proceedings against her.

He concedes it may be a futile gesture, but I think there is merit in this. It will make it harder for those who vote for this wrap around cramdown bill to consider a fig leaf behind which they can pretend they didn't vote for the odious Senate bill.

Levin also brilliantly expounds on the constitutional issue. First, the relevant portion from Article I, Section VII, Clause II of our founding document:

"...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.​

Levin:

And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were... They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President...

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.

This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution's words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of others -- to the courthouse to stop this.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!

...It's not only absurd on its face -- that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on... that's not only absurd on its face, it's blatantly unconstitutional!​

 

[shagdrum]

There cannot be a more dangerous doctrine in a state, than to admit that the legislative power has a right to alter the constitution…For as the constitution limits the authority of the legislature, if the legislature can alter the constitution, they can give themselves what bounds they please
-Demophilus

A Constitution is not the act of a Government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is a power without right.
-Thomas Paine

The construction applied...to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate Congress a power...ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.
-Thomas Jefferson

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
-James Madison

The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.
-James Madison

 

[fossten]

Let this be a lesson to you, people:

Don't trust Democrats. They have shown their true colors once they got power.

 

[shagdrum]

Here is what Judge Michael W. McConnell has to say...

To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.​

 

[Calabrio]

There's no party line, focus tested "argument" in defense of this yet.
Otherwise foxpaws would have tried it in this thread here tonight during her scan of the board.

 

[foxpaws]

There's no party line, focus tested "argument" in defense of this yet.
Otherwise foxpaws would have tried it in this thread here tonight during her scan of the board.

Ah, I need to confer with my comrades - right Cal?

You are so mistaken, if I was that in tune with the party, what am I doing here on this site with tiny traffic numbers...

 

[Calabrio]

Ah, I need to confer with my comrades - right Cal?

You are so mistaken, if I was that in tune with the party, what am I doing here on this site with tiny traffic numbers...

...you must have hit "Submit Reply" early, you didn't say anything about the subject of the thread.

Don't get me wrong, I've been looking forward to seeing your response to this subject. I've been waiting to find out how you would defend such a proposal.

 

[foxpaws]

...you must have hit "Submit Reply" early, you didn't say anything about the subject of the thread.

But Cal - you snarkly used me... so I replied in kind...

Actually I don't have anything to say here - I am not an expert on parliamentary procedures in congress - I have no idea of what they are trying to do - or what historically has been done in instances as this - other than the welfare bill

Reconciliation is hardly new, has been done before, but I don't know how they got around Article I, Section VII, Clause II. Did Bush's tax cuts have reconciliation provisions that were added after - I thought they did. The welfare reform act did... which was passed on yea/nay in reconciliation.
(the act is even called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996).

However, before Bush - every reconciliation act reduced the deficit... I think that is how they might have gotten around it...

In fact Bush's tax cuts caused the House and Senate, in 2007, to adopt rules preventing Congress from using reconciliation to increase deficits and debt as was done in 2001 and 2003.

Maybe that is why congress has studies that show the health care bill will reduce the deficit...

 

[Calabrio]

Reconciliation is hardly new, has been done before, but I don't know how they got around Article I, Section VII, Clause II. ....

The abuse of the reconciliation process is an outrage, but that's not the issue being discussed here... The Slaughter solution is.

I don't know how you can honestly play naively ignorant on it after it's been so thoroughly address in this thread. Unless of course, you're deliberately trying to mislead and confuse Slaughter's solution with reconciliation.

 

[fossten]

But Cal - you snarkly used me... so I replied in kind...

Actually I don't have anything to say here - I am not an expert on parliamentary procedures in congress - I have no idea of what they are trying to do - or what historically has been done in instances as this - other than the welfare bill

Pathetically weak and intellectually dishonest. Isn't it funny how foxpaws cops out whenever she realizes that her precious Democrats have jumped the shark. That's why she never comments in the AGW threads either. "Wha-? Me?"