jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (14 posts)

a conservative perspective says it violates the Constitution...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image68
    SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago

    Shame on Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" Trickery    

    Take Action!

    March 17, 2010

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) shameful scheme to "deem" the Senate Obamacare bill into law without a vote violates Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

    As we mentioned in our action alert two days ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is plotting to use a parliamentary procedure to prevent a recorded vote on the Senate Obamacare bill in the House because she lacks the necessary 216 votes needed to pass it.  This shameful tactic to simply "deem" the Senate bill as passed by bringing the 2,309-page "fixer" bill to a House vote has been dubbed as the "Slaughter Solution," aptly named after liberal House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

    The "Slaughter Solution" violates Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution which states:

    "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."

        * 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 NY (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house and the other house must approve "precisely the same text."
        * What the House is aiming to do is attach a new bill to an existing bill in order to create the illusion that only half of this bill is receiving a vote.
        * Arthur Fergenson, a constitutional law expert and the lawyer who litigated Buckley v. Valeo-the case which enshrined campaign spending as a form of constitutionally protected speech-attests that a bill must be the same item, not a collection of multiple bills.
        * The bill receiving a vote in one chamber must be the identical piece of legislation that receives a vote in the other chamber in order to become law.
        * If the Senate bill does not receive a direct vote in the House, then it is understood that the "fixer" bill is only being agreed to because it contains changes, adjustments, or fixes to an existing piece of legislation.
        * The Senate has never voted on this exact package, or pairing of Obamacare bills.  This means that if President Obama were to sign such a package, the presumed law would be a nullity.
        * Thus, a vote for the Slaughter Solution rule is a vote for the Senate Obamacare bill.

    Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) described this shameful tactic on the House floor:

    "Democrats are trying to use a sneaky snake oil gimmick.
    Let's have an up-or-down vote on this bill
    and not hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo!"

    Rep. Poe described this stealth move perfectly-as an attempt to give vulnerable Democrats cover and the excuse that they did not actually vote in favor of Obamacare becoming the law of the land.  Rather, they are trying to make the claim that they only voted for the "fixer" bill, not for the highly objectionable, corrupt, bribery, and extortion-ridden Senate bill.

    The House Democrat Leadership is committed to using this underhanded approach in order to get the Senate health care bill to Obama's desk for signing and to become law before he leaves for his vacation to Indonesia at 1:00pm Eastern on Sunday, March 21st.

  2. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Democratic party this fall.  I don't see it enduring past the elections.  The leadership is basically throwing their rank and file under the bus.  According to one poll 79% of conservatives and 70% of independents would vote to kick an incumbent out of office.  This would be disastrous for the Dems. 

    The really interesting thing is going to be how the Republican leadership reacts.  If they go Progressive like Bush and his allies in Congress did, I think you'll see a split in the Reps like you're going to see in the Dems this fall. 

    I don't think many professional political analysts get this yet, indeed they may never understand it.  Should both parties crumble, we will, for the first time in about 150 years see an entirely new political party enter the scene.

  3. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    I saw on Fox News the Attorney General for the State of Virginia saying they're gonna try to hold Pelosi accountable for this because it's illegal.

  4. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    States won't have any other choice but to fight this.  They're already struggling with massive deficits in their budgets.  What is interesting is the number of states that are considering remedies.  38.  That's a Constitutionally significant number.  Few people realize that states, themselves, can call a Constitutional Convention, Congress is not needed.  If I were in Washington right now, I'd be wary of pushing the states too far.  But like many who are consumed by a lust for power it would seem that pride goeth before a fall.

  5. Michael Willis profile image78
    Michael Willisposted 6 years ago

    I posted this link a while back and no one saw it or replied to it. But it goes with the subject here.

    Virginia Approves Bill Banning Mandated Health Care

    I guess the next step for the Demogods Obama and Pelosi will be to try to Usurp State Sovereignty and re-write the Constitution.
    With this tactic they are using...why not?
    Think of the possibilities of full Government control if the Constitution can be walked upon without legal consequences by a single majority decision.

    1. ledefensetech profile image81
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's the first shot across the bow of big government.  Something else I've been wondering about is how the Supreme Court will rule when someone inevitably brings suit against the provisions of the bill, should it pass.  It's a little known fact that no law has the force of law unless and until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of said law.  The SCOTUS of FDR's time, for example, struck down many New Deal bills as unconstitutional.  So FDR fought back by threatening to pack the Court with "his" supporters.  Mr. Obama has already offended most of the contemporary Court, so I think any threat of his to do something similar would fall on deaf ears.  Not to mention inflame the passions of the public at large even more against this administration.

      1. Michael Willis profile image78
        Michael Willisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are right. Obama has already offended the Supreme Court. And the people are angry and he had better start listening to The People. So many are going to be voted out of Office in the upcoming election, leaving him basically with a "lame-duck" administration after this attempt to destroy the Constitution and walk on American's rights.

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
          Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But at least he was awarded the "Nobel".

          I think you can find "Nobel"s in Cracker Jack boxes now though.

          1. Michael Willis profile image78
            Michael Willisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol, I bet they wish they could have a recount on that selection now.

          2. ledefensetech profile image81
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The Nobel has been steadily losing any real meaning for some time.  I mean they even gave Al Gore one, which turns out to have been based on fraudulent science.  Perhaps the Nobel Committee needs to rethink their selection criteria.

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
              Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Kissinger has a "Nobel" and he is wanted for war crimes in some countries.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What war crimes, do you know?

                Kissinger seems to be....rather an enigma, from what I gather.
                Stays outta the limelight a lot, but I think has had and still has some major influence in America....

  6. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Kissinger was and is a moron.  His only claim to fame was shepherding the Paris peace process along.  He's wanted for war crimes for the bombing of Cambodia.  Personally I find the whole idea of "war crimes" to be somewhat stupid.  For the most part war crimes are just spoils of victory.  How many Allies were convicted of war crimes in WW II, for example?

    As for Kissinger, I'd argue that he was the main reason American prestige took such a beating until the Reagan presidency.  It was Kissinger that paved the way for the limp-wristed way Ford and Carter dealt with the Soviet Union.