Slaughter solution

The Washington Examiner reports that House Democrats appear poised to adopt a rule that would pass the Senate health care bill without actually voting on 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

For link,
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/03/red-alert-we-are-now-living-under.html


Any thoughts on this? Does anybody care? Is Mark Levin out to lunch or right on?

What exactly is this rule the house would vote on? It seems like the article is heavy on the criticism and light on the details, which to me usually spells B.S. Can anyone provide any more details on what exactly this "Slaughter Rule" really is?

What are the arguments from the other side?

Originally posted by joneschr
What exactly is this rule the house would vote on? It seems like the article is heavy on the criticism and light on the details, which to me usually spells B.S. Can anyone provide any more details on what exactly this "Slaughter Rule" really is?

What are the arguments from the other side?

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.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/15/the-slaughter-rule-yet-another-reason-obamacare-will-be-unconstitutional/

Yeah, I know that's what the article claims. My point is, is that REALLY what the democrats aim to do? It sounds too dense (on the democrats part) to be reality, and so, either A) the author is full of B.S. or B) the author isn't really presenting all the facts.

And that's why asked what the other side (that is, house democrats) have to say about it.

So, again, do you have any arguments from the other side?

Originally posted by joneschr
Yeah, I know that's what the article claims. My point is, is that REALLY what the democrats aim to do? It sounds too dense (on the democrats part) to be reality, and so, either A) the author is full of B.S. or B) the author isn't really presenting all the facts.

And that's why asked what the other side (that is, house democrats) have to say about it.

So, again, do you have any arguments from the other side?

I can find a million things from moderate and to the right sites but nothing from the left on this.

I am sure USAP will be along shortly as the "progressive" voice to clear it all up for us.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I can find a million things from moderate and to the right sites but nothing from the left on this.

I am sure USAP will be along shortly as the "progressive" voice to clear it all up for us.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly this means. Certainly the Congresspeople are educated enough to know they're voting for the bill while they're voting for the rule, right?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I can find a million things from moderate and to the right sites but nothing from the left on this.

I am sure USAP will be along shortly as the "progressive" voice to clear it all up for us.

Here's CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000241-503544.html

Here's an article linked in that article:

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/CD_03-10-10_Slaughter_Preps_Rule_To_Avoid_Direct_Vote_On_Senate_Bill.pdf

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly this means. Certainly the Congresspeople are educated enough to know they're voting for the bill while they're voting for the rule, right?

They know exactly what they are doing (if they do it).

The purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
They know exactly what they are doing (if they do it).

The purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so.

Appearing to who?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I can find a million things from moderate and to the right sites but nothing from the left on this.

I am sure USAP will be along shortly as the "progressive" voice to clear it all up for us.

You're right hang on and USAP will clear it all up, in a page or so.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Appearing to who?

Their constituents.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Their constituents.

Ah, ok.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Their constituents.

Oh just vote on the dang thing. One way or the other. And then make your case during the upcoming campaign.

None of the constituents are going to care about the specific mechanism in which this vote occurs. Okay, maybe there's a couple dozen 24-7 C-Span junkies out there, but not enough to make a difference in the election result.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Oh just vote on the dang thing. One way or the other. And then make your case during the upcoming campaign.

None of the constituents are going to care about the specific mechanism in which this vote occurs. Okay, maybe there's a couple dozen 24-7 C-Span junkies out there, but not enough to make a difference in the election result.

They are not voting yet because Pelosi doesn't have the votes. Thats why they are talking this. Its political suicide and they know it. The Majority of Americans are opposed to this and like it or not the tea partys are sending a loud message. Look at Massachusetts.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
They are not voting yet because Pelosi doesn't have the votes. Thats why they are talking this. Its political suicide and they know it. The Majority of Americans are opposed to this and like it or not the tea partys are sending a loud message. Look at Massachusetts.

Presumably, those who voted for it when it passed the first time agree that this healthcare reform is a good thing or they wouldn't have voted for it to begin with. Regardless of what the polls now say, they can't go back and undo their previous vote.

So they can either go with option A and vote for it and argue "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" or they can go with option B and try to argue that "I was for it but then I was against it" or that "I voted for it the first time, but when the chips were down I was afraid to vote for it".

It would seem that option A will be a much easier sell in November. Voters may respect people who stay true to their principles even when the going gets rough and might be willing to listen while their representative makes his or her case. But voters will have nothing but disdain for the weathervanes who just shift with the winds.