|
Sanity -> The Slaughter Solution (3/14/2010 8:34:06 AM)
|
What it is:
quote:
Rep. Louise Slaughter is chair of the House Rules committee, and as such, figured out that the House could momentarily change its rules to say that the House doesn’t need to pass the Senate bill since both bills are pretty similar anyway (in that they’re about the same subject). That way, Democratic members reticent about voting for the Senate bill technically wouldn’t have to be on record voting for it. They would just have to vote not to stop it from passing. It’s effectively a shift from active passage of the bill to passive. Then, after this rule passed, the Senate bill would go straight to the president, he would sign it, and then both chambers would start working on a few fixes through reconciliation.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/12/why-talk-about-the-slaughter-solution-is-bunk.aspx
That same source goes on to claim that it will never happen because
quote:
It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which such a process would actually fly. Sure, it would take the heat off Dems under fire in their districts for supporting President Obama’s health-care plan, but would constituents already mad at their lawmakers really go easier on them for pushing the same button, just in an indirect way? And as if Republicans weren't already complaining of a shady and unfair process, would they simply sit quietly as Dem leaders redrew the boundaries? The answers, as The Hill agrees, are no. Neither will happen. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Malkin and Levin, both avowed conservatives of course, make interesting points regarding "The Slaughter Solution":
quote:
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! Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn’t?”
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…
According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.
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.
Meet Constitution-butchers Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter. Cleaning House…by bloodying it:
[image]http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/slaughterhouse.jpg[/image]
http://michellemalkin.com/
Personally, I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that Pelosi is "gutting Congress" as he tends to be a bit dramatic about such things, but I would agree that this is another in a long list of things that call her judgment into question, and I seriously doubt that the Slaughter Solution would be Constitutionally legal. That is, it wouldn't stand up to challenges in the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
