HEALTH CARE, "SLAUGHTER SOLUTION, " UNCONSTITUTIONAL
"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." Article I, Section VII - United States Constitution
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that, "we will do whatever is necessary to pass, " the unconstitutional, socialistic government take over of health care nick - named Obamacare. Of course her words are in quotations while the description of this disaster are my own. Pelosi and company have stated that they are willing to violate the Constitution in order to force this debacle down our throats.
Not only are they totally ignoring the people, they are prepared to violate the law as well as rip the Constitution of our land asunder in order to pass this disgusting piece of legislative trash. This bill has nothing to do with reform or lowering costs. It has everything to do with control and opening the flood gates for further socialist legislation. Additionally because of the political capital spent Democrats are pushing this debacle in order to save the Obama Presidency which is NOT a viable reason to pass anything much less an entitlement which takes over 20% of our economy and robs freedom from the American people.
Democrats DO NOT have the votes to pass this nightmare. If they did the vote would already be on the floor and the tally in the process of being counted. Depending on which source used the Dems are anywhere from 5 to 16 votes shy of being able to garner 216 votes to pass Obamacare. Most sources have the tally at around 8 - 9 votes short of passage.
The Senate bill does not go far enough for those on the far left which has them in the nay column and the provision which allows federally funded abortion has pro-life Democrats also in the nay column. Which lends one to believe that the tally is actually close to only 200 placing Dems 15 - 16 votes short.
The Slaughter Solution which allows the House to vote on a few changes in a bill which has NOT been passed by the House, thus, "deeming," the Senate bill as already passed WITHOUT a floor vote not only violates our Constitution but shreds the law concerning how a bill is to proceed through Congress. Allowing House cowards the out of being able to tell constituents they only voted for changes in the bill and NOT the bill itself.
Article I, Section VII contains a clause as quoted at the top of this post which REQUIRES that ALL legislation must be presented for a vote before both chambers of the Congress and a yea or nay vote be recorded BY NAME of each member who is present for the vote. The Senate bill has only been voted on in the Senate and NOT the House and, "deeming," it as already passed in order to force through the legislation because Pelosi cannot get the votes is AGAINST THE LAW !
The audacity and arrogance of House leadership under the heavy hand of Nancy Pelosi that pulling a stunt like this will fool the American people and we will fall for the ploy that House members did not vote for health care, insults the intelligence of Americans and proves once again that Pelosi and crew care nothing about , "reform," nor the American people.
If they pull this stunt we may very well see millions of Americans with torches and rails climbing the steps of the Capitol with tar and feathers running Pelosi and her illegal activities and those who helped her push this garbage down our throats, out of town on a rail, or at least we should. Never before in our history has anything of this magnitude happened with such arrogance and a total disregard of the American people.
We crashed the servers and the phone lines today and we must continue to do so until we defeat this nightmare and then boot these no account freedom robbing Marxists out of office and out of Washington forever!
Ken Taylor
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that, "we will do whatever is necessary to pass, " the unconstitutional, socialistic government take over of health care nick - named Obamacare. Of course her words are in quotations while the description of this disaster are my own. Pelosi and company have stated that they are willing to violate the Constitution in order to force this debacle down our throats.
Not only are they totally ignoring the people, they are prepared to violate the law as well as rip the Constitution of our land asunder in order to pass this disgusting piece of legislative trash. This bill has nothing to do with reform or lowering costs. It has everything to do with control and opening the flood gates for further socialist legislation. Additionally because of the political capital spent Democrats are pushing this debacle in order to save the Obama Presidency which is NOT a viable reason to pass anything much less an entitlement which takes over 20% of our economy and robs freedom from the American people.
Democrats DO NOT have the votes to pass this nightmare. If they did the vote would already be on the floor and the tally in the process of being counted. Depending on which source used the Dems are anywhere from 5 to 16 votes shy of being able to garner 216 votes to pass Obamacare. Most sources have the tally at around 8 - 9 votes short of passage.
The Senate bill does not go far enough for those on the far left which has them in the nay column and the provision which allows federally funded abortion has pro-life Democrats also in the nay column. Which lends one to believe that the tally is actually close to only 200 placing Dems 15 - 16 votes short.
The Slaughter Solution which allows the House to vote on a few changes in a bill which has NOT been passed by the House, thus, "deeming," the Senate bill as already passed WITHOUT a floor vote not only violates our Constitution but shreds the law concerning how a bill is to proceed through Congress. Allowing House cowards the out of being able to tell constituents they only voted for changes in the bill and NOT the bill itself.
Article I, Section VII contains a clause as quoted at the top of this post which REQUIRES that ALL legislation must be presented for a vote before both chambers of the Congress and a yea or nay vote be recorded BY NAME of each member who is present for the vote. The Senate bill has only been voted on in the Senate and NOT the House and, "deeming," it as already passed in order to force through the legislation because Pelosi cannot get the votes is AGAINST THE LAW !
The audacity and arrogance of House leadership under the heavy hand of Nancy Pelosi that pulling a stunt like this will fool the American people and we will fall for the ploy that House members did not vote for health care, insults the intelligence of Americans and proves once again that Pelosi and crew care nothing about , "reform," nor the American people.
If they pull this stunt we may very well see millions of Americans with torches and rails climbing the steps of the Capitol with tar and feathers running Pelosi and her illegal activities and those who helped her push this garbage down our throats, out of town on a rail, or at least we should. Never before in our history has anything of this magnitude happened with such arrogance and a total disregard of the American people.
We crashed the servers and the phone lines today and we must continue to do so until we defeat this nightmare and then boot these no account freedom robbing Marxists out of office and out of Washington forever!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:05 AM
14 Comments:
been a while since I've been over here, ken. good to be back.
It boils down to this, we have hit the point of no return, our nation has lost its freedom due to our own careless wasting of it. We have, since hoover, decided that the government is the rightful protector of our well being, instead of protector of rights and safety. Safety and well being are completely different animals.
We have a nation populated with people that are addicted to the sour milk that comes from the teat of government welfare programs. They will bitch and moan about the direction our nation is heading but when it comes to making the changes that will secure our assendancy as a powerhouse again, you might as well be pissing on the 3rd rail of a subway train, politically speaking.
The constitution be damned, they are going to get their agenda done by hook or crook. And for the most part, America will let them.
You're opening line: 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, (which is actually from Article I, not Article II) has an answer to your premise in the title.
This statement is clearly all about a Bill, as it so states, and as far as I understand what is planned to happen, the House will presently be voting on a rule. Obviously, a rule is not a bill, so there can be no unconstitutional aspect to that vote as far as "bills" are concerned.
Second, the rule process in question that I've heard of was called "self-executing". A little digging shows this type of rule has been used historically, several times in fact.
Congress..Years......Majority party...Used
104th.......1995-1996 Republican........38 times
105th.......1997-1998 Republican........52 times
106th.......1999-2000 Republican........40 times
107th.......2001-2002 Republican........42 times
108th.......2003-2004 Republican........30 times
Are you trying to say that all of the above "self-executing rules" were unconstitutional as well? Or does their existence and successful usage show that there isn't a constitutional question here as well.
I may be wrong (again), but this seems like an either or situation; can you see a third possibility?
well, factyouall, here's the thing. the precise usage here, I would have to have the bills you listed and see the wording for the rules to each to see if they compare apples to apples, is that it passes the bill without voting on the bill in question.
That is the illegal part. Passing a bill that no congressman has ever been given the chance to give an up or down vote on, flies in the face of the constitution.
Ok, so let's assume what you posted about the Republicans doing the same in the past is correct. You showed no proof, but just for the sake of the argument, I'll stipulate. What in the hell makes it right now or then? If they did it, it was evil then, and it's evil now.
The constitution has been set on fire, burned, the ashes pissed on, and mixted with salt by this administration and his cult following in Congressional leadership. No where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the power to implement such sweeping changes as we've seen in the past 18 months. Please notice I'm giving bush hell for this crap too. He opened the door for Barry's leftist actions. But Barry is orders of magnitude worse than even GW.
Greywolfe-
Your comment: have to have the bills … and see the wording for the rules is a rational request. All I can find is an article from Don Wolfensberger, a former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans. Could you reciprocate with references to the current bill or rule that you speak about, for comparison?
On the illegal part, without an up or down vote, I think you may be mistaken. According to house rules, it specifically refers to the house “adopting a rule”. Unless they can adopt a rule without voting, I think this is where the “up or down” thing will happen. I recall seeing a court case, that I don't have a link for, where it was not found illegal to use rules in this manner to pass a bill.
On whether or not it is right now or was right then, I think we agree; right is right, wrong is wrong. Who does it or when it happens is not material; those who try to say otherwise are hypocrites. However, I’m not the one saying it is wrong, you are. I would therefore suggest that you should have, in the past, or at least now be speaking out about similar past events with equal outrage about current events. I rarely, if ever see this happening.
Finally, your set on fire paragraph that you close with; that is quite a set of claims. If I may borrow your words: You showed no proof, but just for the sake of the argument, I choose to disagree and not stipulate. Anyone trying to consider and understand this rant would require some evidence. I’m not holding my breath.
FYA
Geaywolfe - good to see you again. I agree we have let this slide for so long that it is out of control. But it is not to the point where a strong move of and by the people cannot reverse the slide.
factyouall- Excuse the typo. My, "opening line," as you called is a direct quote from the Constitution referring to a bill being voted on in Congress and what the law requires of that bill.
You listed several instances where, "self-executing rules" were used in the past. Find one of those examples where an actualy bill such as the Senate health care debacle was , "deemed, " as already passed by using this method.
The Senate bill HAS NOT been passed in the House by any type of vote and the Cobnstitution as stated in the clause I quoted requires a yea or nay vote ON THE BILL and that every name of a representative who voted be recorded for the record ON THAT PARTICULAR BILL.
Where this move is uncoantitutional is that they WILL NOT be voting on the bill at anytime but rather on a proceedure and changes in a bill that has NEVER passed the House. This is not how the Constitution requires passing of any legislation.
The examples that you di not , "deem, " a bill as already passed as this move does but rather were used in extending the debt linit etc. I still beleive that these moves were unconstitutional regardless of party. I notice that you on the other hand by giving only GOP examples are in essence condoning the Dems violating the Constitution and using the usualy liberal talking point that it has been done before.
Whenever used to bypass actually voting for legislation as is the case now it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal....period!
One addition to my prior comment. If this proceedure is allowed to move forward health care will be sent to Obama's desk while on passing in one Chamber of the Congress and not both as required by the Constitution.
Deeming a bill passed and Constitutionally voting on it are tow different stories. This bill has NEvEr been before the House and as such NEVER voted on.
Additionally because it is a bill which requires the appropriation of money, by not being passed by the House it also violates the Constitution in that Articel I also states that all appropriations bill must originate in the House.
TLLTCT,
You listed several instances: I posted the reference for my data in the 2nd reply to Greywolfe; I thought it defined this well enough. If you aren’t satisfied, you can perform your own investigation. I was primarily trying to point out is that the usage is not all that unusual, and also non-partisan.
The Senate bill HAS NOT been passed in the House: Unless I’m mistaken, no one has claimed, at this point, that the House has acted on the Senate bill. As a side thought, it might be of value to consider the impact of Article 1 / Section 5 (Rules) on this question as well, when the time comes.
Where this move is unconstitutional: With past usage of this (as I’ve referenced) having stood the test of time, I’m satisfied that the process is constitutional, as I understand it. If not, I have confidence that someone will take appropriate action.
The examples that you did not: I’m sorry, I couldn’t make out what you were saying here.
I still believe that these moves: Although we don’t agree on constitutionality, at least we agree, and we each consider party irrelevant when it comes to actions.
I notice that you on the other hand: Unfortunately, the source I found for historical usage only had GOP data; there was no intent to be biased. I’ve since found further data and can add the following:
Congress..Years......Majority party...Used
109th.......2005-2006 Republican........36 times
110th.......2007-2008 Democrat..........49 times
In your closing sentence, the thought process I appear to be seeing seems a bit curious. Just one sentence before this you basically claim that I’m using the usually liberal talking point that it has been done before. And now, you turn around and quickly forget any past usages of this process (which I believe you’ve already described as wrong), and simply refer to the current planned usage as unconstitutional and therefore illegal.... period!. And I’m the one who’s using talking points?
I’ll close with a video; I suggest careful attention @ 4:17.
TLLTCT,
One addition to my prior comment; If this procedure is allowed to move forward health care will be sent to Obama's desk while only passing in one Chamber of the Congress and not both as required by the Constitution. I have faith that with an eventual passage of this bill, any irregularities (which you must admit are somewhat uncertain at this time as the events are still unfolding) will be properly handled by any number of clients and lawyers in the court system, and that justice will prevail.
Deeming a bill passed and Constitutionally voting on it are two different stories. This bill has NEVER been before the House and as such NEVER voted on.Agreed / agreed. However, the two different “stories” may be nothing more that two possible paths to complete passage of a single HCR bill (see prior post – historical usage of the “deeming” process). And although absolutely true that the Senate bill has not been before the House in any manner involving voting, this is nothing more than having to wait until it is brought forward for action. After all, how can a vote take place if the bill is not put in front of the voting body?
Additionally because it is a bill which requires the appropriation of money, by not being passed by the House it also violates the Constitution in that Article I also states that all appropriations bill must originate in the House. Again, I’ll have to refer to the first item above, and rely on due process to resolve any legal issues, as our system is set-up.
"And although absolutely true that the Senate bill has not been before the House in any manner involving voting, this is nothing more than having to wait until it is brought forward for action. After all, how can a vote take place if the bill is not put in front of the voting body?"
You make my point. The purpose of the Slaughter rule is to deem the bill already passed and NOT allow it on the floor for a vote specifically on the Senate bill.
Pelosi stated as such yesterday when she said the resond she like the rule is that House members, "would not have to vote on the Senate bill." Which makes the move in every respect unconstitutional!
TLLTCT,
I understand your reply about making your point. I now see I was not precise enough in my comments to convey my full intent; sorry. The key idea I was trying to make with that paragraph centers around having to wait until it is brought forward for action.
Unless and until the House does something, specifically related to the Senate bill, there will of course be no vote (of any kind), and the Senate bill will remain in its current status. The House will have to take action to have the situation change. Presumably, this is where the Slaughter rule will fit in.
Until the House acts, we are both reacting to how we think events will unfold in the future, which may or may not come to pass exactly as we foresee them. We, and the country, will have to wait to accurately assess any Constitutionality claims based on exact events after they have happened. Such is the nature of the system; future plans cannot be found unconstitutional, only historical actions.
BTW, how about that video (or any other rebuttals above)?
FYA
Time has provided us both with the actual events, rather than predicted or presumed events. Hindsight shows us there was no constitutional issue or crisis involved. That should call for a collective sigh of relief.
Now that the House vote on the Senate bill has passed, the bill will continue on the the President.
As I understand it, the next steps are to bring forward and pass reconciliation bills in the House and Senate.
Perhaps we can all relax a bit on the passed bill, and appreciate our Government of, by, and for the people that voted for their duly elected representatives.
Rest In Peace: Constitution Of The United States. Born September 17, 1787. Died, March 22, 2010.
It was betrayed and destroyed by those sworn to uphold it.
War was declared on this republic by those that govern it. How far will we let them push us before we push back. Hard. Nov. elections won't matter if they use the same hook and crook schemes to get amnesty passed. Look for it to start in the next couple of weeks.
Greywolfe,
What a bunch of silly nonsense.
You are just like that childhood story, Chicken Little. With nothing meaningful to say, you use false rhetorical flourish to trigger simplistic emotional responses. Does that make you proud?
Hate, fear, anger, disgust, fright, rage, shock, panic, fury, detest, scare, rage, despise, horror, malice: are these what a serious discussion would focus and rely on?
I think anyone that uses this approach should grow up and act responsibly; don't treat your audience like they are a herd of sheep that can't think for themselves. Make a rational argument for your viewpoint that engenders thoughtfulness, not mere a reactionary response.
After all, you should be able to persuade and convince the reader of the validity of your position by engaging their intellect and letting them be a part of the process.
I have to wonder if the tactics used here and elsewhere were used at the founding of America; did those true patriots rely on scary, silly talking points to influence their fellow citizens of the justness of the cause of freedom.
I think they would be astonished and appalled at these screeds.
Is this the best argument that can be made?
FYA
factyouall, definition of "reactionary"- Extremely conservative; resistant to radical progressive change.
You're damned right I'm reactionary. Here's the premise for my arguments. I don't need to get into the minutia of the basardization of house rules, senate rules or any of the other methods of obfuscation that the traitorous bastards in our government have used, are using, and will continue to use to push their socialist agendas.
All I have to do is look at history. EVERY country that has tried what they are doing now, failed. Financially, socially, morally. Failed. True strength and freedom has always come from man's reliance on himself, and his neighbors. Weakness and dependance come from man's reliance on a government. I'm not an anarchist. God forbid, rather say I'm an originalist.
As Thomas Paine wrote in "Common Sense" The more simple a government is, the less potential for it do be tyrannical. Our Founders never wanted this type of government for this nation. They were dead set against it, in point of fact, they used the possibility of the government controlling education, health, etc. as a means of RIDICULING those that foresaw the possibility of our constitution being insufficient to restrain the tyrannical tendancies of all governments.
You try to argue that I use Hate, fear, anger, disgust, etc. (by the way, you are redundant in your examples) to focus the discussion.
Why shouldn't I use these things? Passion is the driving force for all good works. Passion is derived from righteous anger, focused fury, fear of evil, disgust at ineffectual, or worse, effetist collaborators, like yourself, that would turn your back on the history and insight of our nations truly unique history.
You and those like you that run to the aid of this insanity, trying to shore up, with quasi-rational arguments, that which will cause the ruination of the greatest political achievement in history, are truly without means of truly creating anything of value in this country. You are, in short, moochers. Leeches. Vampiric ghosts that drain the life blood and spirit from the great national dream that our founders fought, bled, were imprisoned, tortured, and died for.
I'm a proud "reactionary". At least my moral compass is rooted in a social truth, and not in the ill advised beliefs in demonstrably false ideals of social justice, or redistribution of wealth.
And yeah, these arguments are the very ones that many of the patriots of our founding would have used. Read patrick henry's address to congress. Or the writings of Sam Adams.
Or for God's sake, read the Declaration of independance, at least.
Post a Comment
<< Home