Constitution Slaughters The Slaughter Solution
Mar 13, 2010 Political
By now anyone with a head and who is not trying to rewrite history over this issue knows that the Democrats are working full speed ahead to pass unpopular legislation in order to take control of our lives by controlling our health care. They want to vote for Obama’s signature legislative item but they are worried about the ramifications of passing unpopular legislation especially in an election year.
It is a double edged sword because they need to pass it now because they will lose too many seats to pass it next year. But if they pass it now they will lose even more seats and Obama will have no future agenda because Republicans will not allow anything he wants to pass. It won’t get considered. This will be the price for ramming legislation through without following the Constitution. I bet then we hear Democrats scream about being left out of the process and how ham handed the Republicans are.
Anyone who complains should be locked in the basement so we do not have to hear them again. This would include Obama.
The most recent idea coming from Democrats is to consider a bill voted on and passed if another piece of legislation is passed. This is a way to avoid voting on the unpopular bill but getting what they want passed.
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.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law! Doug Ross
According to Constitutional Attorney Mark R Levin, this rule is unconstitutional. The House and Senate must vote on a bill and it must be sent to the president to be signed into law. So far, so good because they are voting on a bill but they are not voting on the bill that will become law and they are not voting in accordance with the Constitution:
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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… [emphasis added]
In ALL cases the bills shall be voted on by Yeahs and Nays. They cannot vote on one rule change and say it means they voted on another bill. Every BILL (singular) must be voted on with yeahs and nays. Our Founders set this up for a reason.
Of course the Constitutionality of something has never stopped Democrats from doing what they wanted but I am pretty sure there will be a lot of legal challenges to any process that does not follow the Constitution and the legal process in accordance with the law.
Note to Democrats, just because you change the rules does not mean the rules adopted are Constitutional.
Here is a link to the US Constitution for those who are challenged in this area. It would be particularly nice if Politicians read this.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out because the left is worried about the interpretation of the Senate Parliamentarian when it should be worried about the Constitution.
Can they use reconciliation to fix a bill that has not been agreed upon by both chambers? Don’t know but they cannot vote for a rule and say it counts as voting for a bill.
The other interesting thing that I see is Joe Biden has a big role in this as President of the Senate. This is the guy who scolded Dick Cheney and cited the wrong part of the Constitution when discussing the role of the VP. Seems that Biden was unaware that the VP has Executive and Legislative responsibility and that this is spelled out in the Constitution (it really helps to read it).
In any event, Biden might get a chance to learn what the VP is allowed to do.
Now it would be funny to see them do all of this only to have it nullified as unconstitutional, or declared not a law because they did not vote on a BILL. They would be back to square one and a lot closer to the election. They would never get another chance and that is a good thing.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, illegal, joe biden, Obama, slaughter, stock market, usurp