Is "Deem and Pass" Constitutional? aka "the Slaughter Rule?

I am a little hazy on what is being done here, but . . .

I am not sure I see why the words "which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" requires a express vote by both Houses on the text the Bill. If a rule of the House says "a Bill shall have passed the House when . . . ," then that rule should govern what it means to have "passed."

The Constitution doesn't seem to require an up or down vote on the actual text set out in any particular form. I fact, constitutionally, I doubt that a bill has "passed" the House or the Senate until after reconciliation, since it can't go to the President before that, in two different versions. It's the post-reconciliation vote that "really" matters. When one house passes anything, that is really just vote to send a bill into the reconcilliation process.

When they have a vote on the reconciled bill, that's Article I, Section 7.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's where it stands:
195 firm Yes, 208 firm No

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was spurious the first time around and just plain wrong this time. This bill is another order of magnitude compared to anything passed by the reps. Besides, people are more informed today and Obama has brought himself into the spotlight by pushing further left than the country is ready for. While in the spotlight he has poisened the process, by campaigning on transparency and resorting to backroom deals and late night votes because alot of American people do not want this kind of change.

Many saw the shadow that was cast over this "healthcare bill" when the three elections he stumped for lost. However, after a short speech about his plans to focus more on jobs and unemployment, the healthcare bill is now becoming a runaway train and unemployment continues to waver.

Many states are taking a stance against it, the next few months will be interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course. I would never argue that point.

Actually, my friend, the Constitution does not say any such thing. It is intentionally vague, and clearly leaves it up to each house of Congress to decide such things. All that is required is for the "yeas and nays" to be tallied when a certain number demands it and for that number to be a majority. From this same vagueness, you get one house having a rule giving a minority the right to jabber on and one, ad nauseum, to prevent a bill from ever being voted on. It says nothing about shady legalisms and the pre-packaging of a bill in slimy language.

While I could argue, successfully, that this type of legislation violates the spirit of the Constitution, you'll struggle to find a legal wording that would prevent it.

At the end of the day, the House will vote on this bill, it's wording will merely be pre-packaged into another bill, which itself, will be voted on. And, hey, we'll all know who voted for or against this bill. This is the most monumental piece of legislation since the Patriot Act's re-authorization which, coincidentally, was passed using the same tactic.

~String

 

Here is what Senator Byrd had to say about using reconciliation to pass a health care bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ormXLyyJtr8

 

Wow. So Clinton wanted to try this same tactic to ram thru his healthcare plan but Byrd refused and said "Reconciliation was NEVER, NEVER, NEVER intended to be used as a shield for controvercial legislation"

 

So what? It's not that controversial, it's not single payer, and let's face it, Republicans would call any Democratic bill controversial.

 

This may not be single payer, but it does pave the way for the transition into it. If you disagree then put down the hopium and google what what Harry Reid said today about single payer in the future. And the difference that makes this controversial is the opposition to this bill includes dems.

 

They subject is changing, but the senate parlimentarian (a Republican appointee) decides what is or is not permitted under reconcilliation. And you have to assume that whatever the Democrats intend to do has his blessing.

 

I hate to tell you this, but Fox News disagrees with you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/19/ohio-democrat-flips-yes-health-care/

 

I think they've got the votes.

~String

 

If you end up being right, I hope when the reps take over they don't use this strategy to go to war.

 

On Lies and Looking Forward

I thought perhaps someone ought to make the point:

This is the danger of overstatement in pursuit of drama. As we see, the Democrats were really "settled" on the deem and pass option in the House.

Quite frankly, it's possible that Republicans have just bitten on one of the most ridiculous baits ever hung out for the hunt. I can't necessarily say this is how the Democrats had it planned; indeed, I doubt it so. Even I chuckled when I heard Nancy Pelosi described, before the vote, as the greatest Speaker of the House ever. But conservative clodhopping politics have helped to redefine the political landscape with the passing of this health care bill in the House.

For politicians in general, and especially conservatives, the debate at hand never suffices. This time, though, Republicans and their supporters so grossly exaggerated conditions on the ground that they seem nearly caricatures of themselves. And given that their regular appearance is already a caricature of conservative sentiments, that means something; the only real question of significance is whether that multiplier is a coefficient or an exponent.

From the moment the "deem and pass" debutante had its old-fashioned coming out, Republicans have carried on as if the tactic was inevitable. Hindsight suggests the possibility of planning, although never in my wildest dreams would I think Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional leadership so cagey. I mean, even colloquial name, "the Slaughter solution"—

Democratic congressional leaders have floated a plan to enact health-care reform by a procedure dubbed "the Slaughter solution." It is named not for the political carnage that it might inflict on their members, but for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, who proposed it.

(McConnell)​

—now seems suspect.

Editorial pages ripped the maneuver; even allegedly liberal newspapers pleaded against the deem and pass option. Editorial cartoonists ripped Pelosi and the Democrats over the possibility. President Obama put off the Indonesians not once, but twice; was it really so hard to delay the first time until after the vote? And in the end, the Democrats pulled a rabbit out, a shocking feat considering they had to reach around their heads to do it, and won a majority vote.

A majority vote.

"... they now have settled on a last ditch strategy to pass it without really voting on it ...."​

The Democrats do enough wrong. If left to their own devices, they will find new and inventive ways to hurt themselves. The problem with trying to exaggerate and twist reality in order to score more superficial points on the cosmic scoreboard of politics is that every once in a while, you end up being handed your ass. And when it is the Democrats who do that ass-handing, you look even worse. After all, it's your ass you're aceepting from a professional jackass.

Conservatives, in their battle damage assessment, need to consider the number of ways their political affiliations tie them to professional liars. And here we don't just mean CEOs and lawyers, but bombastic clergy and half-wit congregations; the capitalists. These are broad ranges. But in addition to this basic smear implied by social custom, the GOP reinforces that notion by a peculiarly risky device: generally speaking, the people recognize that politicians are dishonest, but some political figures aim to exploit that fact, justifying sensational breaches of honesty—even what conventionally passes for honesty in Beltway circles—with ridiculous comparisons to mundane political rhetoric that people already distrust. This has been going on, explicitly, for years. The Atwater school was a miniature version, a diorama of the Rove school of politics.

The GOP and its wagon train circled up and ferociously shot themselves in the feet. Comparatively, everything else on the table should have been sufficient. They went from twenty percent identification and a purely oppositional strategy that left them trying to cozy up to their unwieldy and oft-undesirable Tea Party and conspiracy theorist offspring to once again possessing and manipulating the political spotlight while the Democrats fell all over themselves like another plotless Sennett farce.

And look at what happened. Liberals expected the worst. We put up the academic defenses: How dare you get outraged about this. Not now. You never complained before.

We hoped for something better. Again, newspapers plead, cartoonists unloaded.

And Republicans overspent. To attend the public discourse was to swim in a sea in which the question was not whether the Democrats would do it, but what were the implications for when they did, Meanwhile, inside the Beltway, the Democrats cobbled together a House majority to put the question to rest. Now all that's left is a cadre of hurdle monkeys holding high-risk IOUs for policy concessions that they probably won't ever win. We thank them for their support, apologize for whatever disappointments American politics have in store for them, and trust that they will at least recognize that it is called the Potomac Two-Step for a reason. Welcome to Washington. That part, at least, has been around since the beginning.

And what do the GOP have to look forward to? Not just an oppositional strategy against established law, but the unavoidable public appearance of supporting legal challenges to the established law in order to undermine it for political gain—and here I'll note the strange sensation of having to decide anew how I feel about public short-term memory loss, as presently the Democrats stand to reap a tremendous harvest—and the uphill effort of fighting against established law in the political context, as well.

This is where Sen. Mitch McConnell's leadership has brought the GOP:

Before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before President Obama even took office, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.

Republicans embraced it. Democrats denounced it as rank obstructionism. Either way, it has led the two parties, as much as any other factor, to where they are right now. Republicans are monolithically against the health care legislation, leaving the president and his party executing parliamentary back flips to get it passed, conservatives revived, liberals wondering what happened.

In the process, Mr. McConnell, 68, a Kentuckian more at home plotting tactics in the cloakroom than writing legislation in a committee room or exhorting crowds on the campaign trail, has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message.

(Hulse and Nagourney)​

And it comes down to something our neighbor said:

"... they now have settled on a last ditch strategy to pass it without really voting on it ...."​

A generation of politics could hinge on a comfortable mistake like that. The Democrats pulled out a majority, and bludgeoned that casual codswallop to feculence. No explanation for such a statement defies the fact that it exists. The fact is that it is a comfortable, or at least familiar, distaste. And it was wrong. Exactly wrong in its attempt to further poison the river of discourse.

I am not a liberal because I am a Democrat. I support the Democrats because, as a liberal, they're the nearest thing to a snowball's chance in Hell I have in this country. No, seriously. Have you seen the state of the Revolution in America? I mean, the original one, speak nothing of the People's to come. No matter what we do, Americans are determined to do it the hard way.

More than anything, this vote is a relief. I don't pretend it fulfills anything but the most superficial of promises. Still, if the bill works anything like Krugman suggests—

So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.

For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.

This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.​

—I'll call it a plus, a start. It's something to work with, for certain. Will it go that way? See, that's the thing about holding the current tactical ground. It's much easier to defend this thing and keep it secure than it was getting here. I'll take anything short of a catastrophe. As long as it leaves us something to work with, something to build on.

Because unfortunately, some of my neighbors need to realize that at some point, our most basic responsibilities to one another must necessarily manifest themselves in the public discourse of democracy. And compared to what a good many believe our basic responsibilities include as pertains to the public discourse of democracy, y'all are getting off easy. Remember that. This is as much as they could manage against such a petulant and poisonous outrage against their responsibilities in society.

Of course we can do better. Perhaps our conservative neighbors will concede this simple fact, and get on the trolley, so that we might make this work as well as possible.
____________________

Notes:

McConnell, Michael W. "The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution". Wall Street Journal. March 15, 2010. Online.WSJ.com. March 23, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html

Cole, John. "Pelosi deem to pass". Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoonists Index. March 17, 2010. Blog.Cagle.com. March 23, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/tag/deem-to-pass/

Cagle, Daryl. "Congress Deem and Pass Healthcare". Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoonists Index. March 19, 2010. Blog.Cagle.com. March 23, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/2010/03/19/congress-deem-and-pass-healthcare/

Hulse, Carl and Adam Nagourney. "Senate G.O.P. Leader Finds Weapon in Unity". The New York Times. March 17, 2010; page A13. NYTimes.com. March 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html

Krugman, Paul. "Health Reform Myths". The New York Times. March 12, 2010; page A27. NYTimes.com. March 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html

 

Hopium. LOL

 

http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman...-and-pass-the-gop-did-deem-and-pass-big-deal/

MadWayne, can you please explain your selective outrage?

 

Retroactive

It's not selective, but retroactive. See #13 above.