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

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?" :rolleyes:

I think I missed the point there last night, foxpaws answered my questioned fully. What she said is the Democrat/Progressive angle on this.

It's to confuse and misdirect the blatantly unconstitutional Slaughter solution with the less overtly unconstitutional abuse of the reconciliation process, to confuse the two as as one, and the use historic examples that are completely unrelated both in subject and scope. It's considered a complicated process, reconciliation is part of the slaughter solution, so they just need to confuse things for a week or so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's instructive for all of us in dealing with a propagandist/professional liar like foxpaws. It allows a glimpse into the inner workings of true evil and how it thinks.

It's evil to try to enslave people. It's evil to deliberately deceive people.
 
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.

I have no idea on what the Slaughter solution is- I can't make heads or tales of it in this thread, and to tell you the truth it really doesn't interest me.

I am pretty sure reconciliation isn't going to happen, especially with that 2300 + page bill - there is too much political payment involved, with the elections only a few months away, most politicians aren't going to want to pay the price.

Do you really understand it Cal? It seems like a lot of mumble jumble - I understand reconciliation, but not this mess.
 
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?" :rolleyes:

Well, the fact I had to look up AGW should mean something.

I have stated what I believe regarding global warming - that it is way too complicated for me to understand. I do understand that the ice caps are melting for some reason... And I understand I don't like pollution, nor its affect on the air I breath and the water I drink and the soil the food I eat is grown in. I think for those reasons - clean air, clean water, clean soil, we should eliminate as much pollution as we can.

Also, the fact that our off planet choices are rather minimal at this point leads me to believe we should be pretty nice to the one we have been given custody.

But, is the planet heating up, and why or why not? Way above me Foss - I am glad you seem to have a handle on the rather complex science involved, since many scientists don't.
 
Really? Both of them? You sure about that? :rolleyes:

(Risk of thread hijack)

Nope, that is why I steer clear of global warming topics...

But I am really sure that I don't like bad air, polluted water and poisoned soil... As well as I am pretty sure we aren't going to another planet anytime soon...

This one is ours, we need to take pretty good care of it, because you and I foss, don't have any other options.
 
I have no idea on what the Slaughter solution is- I can't make heads or tales of it in this thread, and to tell you the truth it really doesn't interest me.

Blatantly disregarding the rule of law; circumventing the Constitution to rule by fiat does interest you?!

The Slaughter Solution is not too hard to understand and you have been able to grasp more complex things in this forum...

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.

from the Van Hollen memo...
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.”
I think you have your response from Fox...
 
Blatantly disregarding the rule of law; circumventing the Constitution to rule by fiat does interest you?!

The Slaughter Solution is not too hard to understand and you have been able to grasp more complex things in this forum...



from the Van Hollen memo...
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.”
I think you have your response from Fox...
Shag - I truly don't think this will pass in any form as of this point - so that is why Slaughter isn't all that interesting to me...
Someone needs to find it interesting-and I am glad that you do... And in this thread - the way it has been presented - is rather complex. So between rather complex, uninteresting, and most likely, not relevant, I have found better things to do...

Caucuses for example, are this week in Colorado - when are they in Kansas?
 
Shag - I truly don't think this will pass in any form as of this point - so that is why Slaughter isn't all that interesting to me...

Anyone even considering this attack on the Constitution is unfit for office. If the President were to sign it, that would include him too.

Here, I will spell it out for you:

They will create a "self-effecting rule" that "deems" that if the reconciliation bill passes the House, so does the Senate Bill. There will be no actual vote on the Senate Bill...

Here is what the Constitution says:
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. [/I]​
 
Shag - I truly don't think this will pass in any form as of this point - so that is why Slaughter isn't all that interesting to me...
Someone needs to find it interesting-and I am glad that you do... And in this thread - the way it has been presented - is rather complex. So between rather complex, uninteresting, and most likely, not relevant, I have found better things to do...

Caucuses for example, are this week in Colorado - when are they in Kansas?
Not relevant? How can you make that determination since you claim to know nothing about it? Tsk tsk, caught you in yet another lie, fox...

So, basically, when you have no good answer for something, you claim convenient ignorance and lack of interest. You're not interested in finding out if the Democrats are breaking the law? I'll bet if it was a Republican you would. :rolleyes:

As I've said - you're either a professional liar or a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.
 
Not relevant? How can you make that determination since you claim to know nothing about it? Tsk tsk, caught you in yet another lie, fox...

So, basically, when you have no good answer for something, you claim convenient ignorance and lack of interest. You're not interested in finding out if the Democrats are breaking the law? I'll bet if it was a Republican you would. :rolleyes:

It isn't relevant to me right now foss- sorry... I know you would love to bash me around on this - but, you need to find other liberals to play with you in this playground.

They could well be breaking the law... And perhaps someday I'll suddenly become interested, but not right now foss...

As I've said - you're either a professional liar or a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

I'll take the second choice on this issue foss. I cannot know all about all - unlike you...

nice pull quote by the way...
 
It isn't relevant to me right now foss- sorry... I know you would love to bash me around on this - but, you need to find other liberals to play with you in this playground.
Then GTFO of this thread. You're just trolling.
 
I was off this thread until Cal called me in... duh...

And I think you guys should look closer at what reconciliation does - I at least know that part - I worked closely on welfare reform which went through reconciliation... I am not sure if somehow slaughter gets around the house voting on the senate's bill outright (on it's own) and then votes on the reconciliation portions as an addendum. And then the senate has to vote the entire reconciliation through...

Is slaughter different than reconciliation votes in the past - that is what I don't understand... Does this get around the house voting on the senate bill first - and then trying to move their agenda through on reconciliation?

If it gets around the house without actually voting on the senate bill - then it will go to the supreme court - right away. The GOP will send it right over - no passing go, no collecting $200. That is unconstitutional. And the court will vote in the favor of the GOP.
 
Nope, that is why I steer clear of global warming topics...

But I am really sure that I don't like bad air, polluted water and poisoned soil... As well as I am pretty sure we aren't going to another planet anytime soon...

This one is ours, we need to take pretty good care of it, because you and I foss, don't have any other options.
OT: You might want to look at this, fox...our air isn't as dirty as you think.
 
Yep - know all about it - in fact last year about this time I was going on in some other tyranny post about how the clean air act of 1990 was a really great thing...

Not only is our air cleaner but.... we are healthier and richer because of it. And, you know the energy industry fought this tooth and nail... Funny how now they tout how clean our air is. Left to their devices we would probably look a whole lot like Beijing now.

Using a sophisticated array of computer models and the latest emissions and cost data, the EPA study shows that in the year 2010 the Amendments of 1990 will prevent 23,000 Americans from dying prematurely, and avert over 1,700,000 incidences of asthma attacks and aggravation of chronic asthma. In addition, in 2010, they will prevent 67,000 incidences of chronic and acute bronchitis, 91,000 occurrences of shortness of breath, 4,100,000 lost work days, and 31,000,000 days in which Americans would have had to restrict activity due to air pollution related illness. Plus, 22,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions would be averted, as well as 42,000 cardiovascular (heart and blood) hospital admissions, and 4,800 emergency room visits for asthma.

The report, the most comprehensive and extensive assessment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments ever conducted, was the subject of extensive peer review, during which independent panels of distinguished economists, scientists, and public health experts provided in-depth assessment and advice throughout the study's design, implementation, and documentation.

For those health and ecological benefits which could be quantified and converted to dollar values, EPA's best estimate is that in 2010 the benefits of Clean Air Act programs will total about $110 billion. This estimate represents the value of avoiding increases in illness and premature death that would have prevailed without the clean air standards and provisions required by the Amendments. By contrast, the detailed cost analysis conducted for this new study indicates that the costs of achieving these health and ecological benefits are likely to be only about $27 billion, a fraction of the economic value of the benefits.

It is fairly rare that you do bad things by keeping things clean - well except removing the patina on antiques...
 
The point being that we don't need to further cripple our economy at this point.
 
The point being that we don't need to further cripple our economy at this point.

Cripple it by doing what? Cap and Trade - I agree with you there foss. But, by creating clean earth technologies we will help our economy. The Chinese are zooming ahead of us on clean earth technology - are you really that interested in buying that technology from the Chinese? One thing we do really well is innovate-and that is what happened with the Clean Air Act of 1990 - we had to innovate to meet those standards. Now those innovations are sold the world over.

It is better to be on the cutting edge, than trailing behind. And often it seems like in this country we don't approach cutting edge until our feet are held to the fire by regulation.

And maybe that is exactly what this country needs - impetus to lead in this area. Do carrots really work, or does threat of fines, et. al., work better? Often American industry has shown that fines work better than candy...
 
Green technologies aren't as viable as you say they are. We don't agree on this.

"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
 
Back to the topic at hand...
House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Republicans quickly condemned the strategy, framing it as an effort to avoid responsibility for passing the legislation, and some suggested that Pelosi's plan would be unconstitutional.

"It's very painful and troubling to see the gymnastics through which they are going to avoid accountability," Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), the senior Republican on the House Rules Committee, told reporters. "And I hope very much that, at the end of the day, that if we are going to have a vote, we will have a clean up-or-down vote that will allow the American people to see who is supporting this Senate bill and who is not supporting this Senate bill."

House leaders have worked for days to round up support for the legislation, but the Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive.

Some senior lawmakers have acknowledged in recent days that Democrats lack the votes for passage. Pelosi, however, predicted Monday that she would deliver.

"When we have a bill, then we will let you know about the votes. But when we bring the bill to the floor, we will have the votes," she told reporters.

Pelosi said Monday that House Democrats have yet to decide how to approach the vote. But she added that any strategy involving a separate vote on the Senate bill "isn't too popular," and aides said the leadership is likely to bow to the wishes of its rank and file.

As Pelosi and other congressional leaders pressed wavering lawmakers, President Obama highlighted how close the result may be as he focused his attention Monday on Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has been a stalwart no vote on health-care reform.

Kucinich, an uncompromising liberal, has rejected any measure without a government-run insurance plan. Obama invited Kucinich to join him aboard Air Force One for a trip to suburban Cleveland, where the president made a plea for reform, the third such pitch in eight days.

As he addressed a crowd of more than 1,400, Obama repeatedly called on lawmakers to summon the "courage to pass the far-reaching package." He painted the existing insurance system as a nightmare for millions of American who cannot afford quality coverage.

The president lashed out at Republican critics who have argued that the health-care initiative would undermine Medicare, and he argued that the measure would end "the worst practices" of insurance companies.

"I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do," he said, nearly shouting as the crowd cheered. "And so I'm calling on Congress to pass these reforms -- and I'm going to sign them into law. I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."

Asked whether he was reconsidering his position, Kucinich demurred. But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Kucinich is coming under intense pressure from Ohioans who want Congress to act, and from his colleagues in Washington.

"All of us -- the governor, the congressional delegation, the president -- are making clear to Dennis that we won't have another chance for a decade if this doesn't happen," Brown said.

Persuading liberals such as Kucinich to support the Senate bill is critical to the Democratic strategy, which has been rewritten since January, when Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. The Senate Democratic caucus, reduced to 59 seats, lost its ability to override Republican filibusters and soon abandoned plans to pass a revised version of the health-care bill that would reflect a compromise with House leaders.

As House leaders looked for a path that could get the Senate legislation through the chamber and onto Obama's desk, conservatives warned that Pelosi's use of deem-and-pass in this way would run afoul of the Constitution. They pointed to a 1998 Supreme Court ruling that said each house of Congress must approve the exact same text of a bill before it can become law. A self-executing rule sidesteps that requirement, former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Democrats were also struggling Monday to put the finishing touches on the package of fixes. Under reconciliation rules, it is protected from filibusters and could pass the Senate with only 50 votes, but can include only provisions that would affect the budget.

Democratic leaders learned over the weekend that they may not be able to include a number of favored items, including some Republican proposals to stem fraud in federal health-care programs and a plan to weaken a new board that would be empowered to cut Medicare payments.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the Democratic leader tasked with protecting politically vulnerable incumbents, said Republicans would twist the nature of the health-care vote, no matter how the leadership proceeds. He defended the deem-and-pass strategy as a way "to make it clear we're amending the Senate bill."

Without that approach, Van Hollen warned, "people are going to try to create the impression that the Senate bill is the final product, and it's not."

Undecided Democrats appeared unconcerned by the flap. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), a retiring lawmaker who opposed the original House bill and is undecided on the new package, mocked Republican criticism of the process. Ultimately, he said, voters will hold lawmakers responsible for any changes in law.

"I don't think anybody's going to say that we didn't vote for the bill," he said.​
 
Why the Rules Matter
By Christopher Chantrill

Back in the Bush era, it was Republicans who got fed up with the rules. Democrats in the U.S. Senate were filibustering conservative judge nominees, and Republicans had had enough of it. So they planned to change the rules in the Senate with the "nuclear option" that would allow an up-or-down vote on their judges with a bare 51-vote majority. Democrats like then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) were outraged at this chicanery, but the bipartisan Gang of 14 defused an explosive situation so that the judge nominations could go forward.

Now the Democrats are in power, and they are frustrated with the rules. After a year of trying, they've produced a genius ObamaCare bill that has passed the Senate but that can't pass the House. Or is it vice-versa? They want to change the rules so that they can avoid a filibuster in the Senate. This time, it is Republicans that are outraged.

The idea of "rules" is central to the modern moral order and its contract idea of government. In A Secular Age, Charles Taylor writes that today, "Political authority itself is legitimate only because it was consented to by individuals ... and this contract creates binding obligations in view of the pre-existing principle that promises ought to be kept." When you change the rules, you break the promise, and you invalidate the legitimacy of your political authority.

Here's how this theory proves itself in practice. It was explained to me years ago by my Greek friend George in the 1970s immediately after the end of military rule in Greece. The conservative party had been elected after the end of military rule. The key thing, George told me in the late 1970s, was that the rising socialist party, PASOK, should get elected to power and the that the ruling conservative party should actually turn over the government to their hated rivals. Then, in due course, PASOK should be defeated, the conservatives elected to office, and PASOK should turn back the government to the conservatives. Only then, George said, would each party believe that the other guys would play by the rules.

It's the same here in the United States. Political partisans are always yielding to dark thoughts about the opposition. Watergate confirmed Democrats in all their fears about "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Conservative conspiracy theorists constantly worried about Bill Clinton breaking the rules, and they even feared that he'd find a way to circumvent the Twenty-Second Amendment's limit on presidential terms.

More recently, Democrats spent eight years questioning President Bush's legitimacy, and Republicans constantly obsess over ACORN, which seems to be designed by Democrats to steal close elections for Democrats.

The way to cool the fever swamps in the other party is to follow the rules and to be seen to follow the rules. When you don't, you rile up the opposition. You'd think that the Democrats would be careful, now that they are in power, to avoid riling up the opposition, especially since they made such a big deal about transparency and post-partisanship in 2008.

But you would be wrong.

Instead, Democrats spent 2009 failing to execute a partisan program that has failed, again and again, to win any support from Republicans. And now that the president's signature health care proposal is badly winged by its unpopularity and by Republican election victories, Democrats are changing the rules to drag their wounded bird over the finish line before it dies.

Government is force. We humans prefer not to think about that, but we should. Especially when our party is in power, we should never forget that every government program that spends taxpayers' money, no matter how wonderful, is still all about force. Wise governments fashion bipartisan legislation whenever possible to create the impression that everyone except a few cranks is in favor of their program.

The best way to remind the opposition partisans of the truth about government and get them to fear for their lives and their freedom is by doing what the Democrats are doing. You push an unpopular program through on a party-line basis, and you change the rules and broker corrupt back-room deals when the going gets tough.

The modern moral order, as we saw above, is founded upon the idea of a social contract, a set of rules that everyone must follow. But our liberal friends have often been tempted by the idea that rules are not for them. It's OK for the poor to break the rules because the rules are unjust and favor the powerful; it's OK for liberals to break the rules because they are creative artists challenging the status quo.

Liberals are wrong to think that they and their clients are exempt from the rules. Luckily for them, the Tea Party movement will shortly set them right.
 
Pelosi, Slaughter went to court against GOP's self-executing rule in 2005
By: Mark Tapscott

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 using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? 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.
 
“Slaughter Rule” Strategy Unprecedented
Posted by Brian Darling

Lefties (Daily Kos, TPMDC, and Huffington Post) are defending against allegations that the “Slaughter Rule” proposed strategy to pass ObamaCare without a vote is unprecedented and unconstitutional. The Slaughter Rule has the support of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and is the Democrats preferred strategy to pass ObamaCare. Liberals are peddling a talking point that self-executing rules like the Slaughter Rule have been done before and it was the Republicans that used this tool in the past.

The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece today that critiques the Pelosi strategy, the “Slaughter Rule,” that is being considered to pass ObamaCare.
We’re not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. Under the “reconciliation” process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.
I eagerly wait the left pointing to a precedent where a bill is deemed to have passed without a direct vote that effects 1/6th of the U.S. economy. I also await a precedent where the House used a vote on a budget reconciliation measure to deem as passed another piece of legislation. This process is so complicated that the President has to sign the ObamaCare bill before he signs the reconciliation measure into law, for this trick to work.

Speaker Pelosi admitted that she does not want to allow a direct vote on the House passed measure when she stated yesterday that “nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.” Ryan Grimm of the Huffington Post writes:
The Speaker, in a press briefing with progressive media in her Capitol office, said that three options were under consideration. One of them involved a vote on the Senate health care bill, followed by a vote on a reconciliation package. “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill,” she said. She wouldn’t rule out that option, she said, because there is no official bill language yet, which she said she needs first before she makes a decision on process.
This shows an intent on the part of Pelosi to skirt the Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” If the House does not have a direct vote on the legislation, this seems to be a violation of the explicit language of the Constitution. Pelosi favors the Slaughter Rule that would allow a complicated procedure to be used so that the House does not have to schedule a direct vote on the Senate passed version of ObamaCare at any stage in the process. More from Huffington Post and Pelosi:
So the third option is to write the rule so that the passage of the reconciliation package deems the Senate bill to also have passed, a parliamentary maneuver she said the Senate parliamentarian had said was acceptable. It’s a technical distinction and Democrats hope that it’s deep enough in the weeds that average voters will focus instead on the substance of the legislation instead of the confusing process. Asked if she had firmly decided to pursue the third option, she answered, “I like the third one better.”
Now we know that the House is seriously considering a procedure of questionable constitutionality to pass a bill of questionable constitutionality. Once this trigger is pulled, the Senate will consider a reconciliation measure that is functionally an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill. This violates the House and Senate tradition that reconciliation amend existing law as a deficit cutting tool. After that, the President has to sign the Senate passed, and House deemed to have been passed, version of ObamaCare. After that he has to have another signing ceremony for the reconciliation measure for the plan to work.

This is a very complicated procedure being used to pull a fast one on the American people.
 

Staff online

Members online

Back
Top