[excon]

Now, what would be wrong with that???

Hello in:

If we were starting from scratch, it's a great idea. Be we owe zillions, and it's going to be paid one way or another. Take your pick: high taxes till we get it paid, or a debasement of the currency?

The problem isn't what's happening NOW. It's what happened... Tom talks about the prosperity Reagan created, but he created it out of whole cloth because he borrowed zillions... So did your buddy, George W. Bush.

Bummer... You don't mind borrowing for your wars, but it has to be paid back. No, we're not going to end unemployment benefits even though most of you, like the twinch Senator from Arizona, Kyle who thinks that those benefits keep the lazy bastards at home and not out looking for work. Starving would be the incentive you'd employ...

excon

[galveston]

Most communities are willing and able to take care of their most needy people.

When the feds do it, it's like carrying water in a very leaky bucket.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the OP?

Even if you find 20% error in the post, that still leaves 80%revolutionaries whose goal is the destruction of our constiltutional rights.

At this very time, there is a move to call a law passed that hasn't even been voted on.

Never mind that the Constitution is very clear that there must be a vote and every name must be recorded as to how that representative voted.

If allowed to stand, this kind of "representation" would shred the Constitution completely.

[excon]

Hello gal:

You might be on to something... I heard about some unconstitutional legal trickery the Dems were planning to use to "ram" health care through. But, he never did explain the process. I guess his listeners take his word for it... Then tom mentions it too, but I still don't see the process which is unconstitutional. Just his statement... Now, you're saying it's so.

Can you explain the unconstitutional process?? Or, are you, like tom and Hannity, just taking somebody else's word, and repeating it for us?

excon

[tomder55]

This is being called the 'Slaughter solution';
Named for House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, the New York Democrat who came up with the idea.

The Dems will attempt to pass health care through the House by approving the Senate bill without voting on it. The rules committee is concocting a stunt that would allow them to write language into the reconciliation bill that would "deem the Senate bill passed " without the House actually taking a roll call vote on the Senate measure... a self-executing rule.
This will give political cover to the Reps who will have to face angry constituents when Obamacare becomes law. They can claim to never actually voting on the bill that is passed.

A neat trick ;but it is unconstitutional according to Article 1
Sec 7 paragraphs 1 and 2

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law

The only way the Senate bill can be construed as originating in the House would be for a new conference committee bill being passed.Passing it inside a reconciliation measure doesn't pass constitutional muster.
And certainly passing the Senate version without a roll call vote is a blatant violation. The language in the article leaves no ambiguity at all . A bill is not passed unless the votes of all the members is recorded... and a bill is not eligible to be signed into law unless it is passed by both Houses properly.

The President has called on Congress to send a health care bill to his desk to sign with "an up or down" vote. Apparently the
House of Reps can't get it done legitimately ;so they invent new parlimentarian tricks to get around it . But I am sure there will be court challenges filed immediately after it is attempted .

[tomder55]

Here is another reason why the slaughter option is unconstitutional

The Constitution reads

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him…

article 1 sec7 clause 3

There is a principle called non delegation which judicially did in the attempt to get a line item veto.The principle says in this case that the House has a duty to send a bill for the President to sign that is voted on by BOTH houses of Congress as described in clause 2 .

To package the Senate bill into the reconciliation bill and deem it passed skirts the fundamentals of the non delegation principle.

Further , if the House votes on two bills at once, the President must approve that vote “before the same shall take effect,” because the vote at least partially requires the Senate's concurrence. The President cannot pick which part of the House vote to approve, and the House vote cannot have any effect unless the President approves it. Example ,the Senate has the "Nebraska compromise" aka the 'cornhusker kickback'tucked in the bill and surely the reconciliation bill will rescind it . The President will have a bill in front of him that both includes and excludes the Nebraska compromise. The same could be said for any aspect of the reconciliation bill. Why would you need a reconciliation bill if not to amend the Senate bill ? The President will be in a position where he both signs a bill and it's amendments concurrently .

The Heritage guide to the Constitution explains that Madison foresaw the day when Pelosi's of the world would attempt such a stunt.
The Heritage guide to the Constitution - Google Books
(page 92)

But let's hear it from the judge.
Michael W. McConnell: The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution - WSJ.com

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

That should thrill you. It'll be EASY to overturn.

excon

[tomder55]

Law by fiat. If the Dems want a Constitutional crisis then continue along this path. I know for a fact that the challenges are already being drafted .

The irony of this ,as Michael McConnell says,is that when this issue last came up over the line-item veto in Clinton v. City of New York (1998),Pelosi and Slaughter both filed an amicus against the very thing she will be attempting .Pelosi was against the Slaughter solution before she was for it.

[speechlesstx]

Pelosi was against the Slaughter solution before she was for it.

Wasn't Slaughter herself a part of that Amicus?

Those who use the "Slaughter solution" will be one-upping Lurch. They'll tell their constituents they were both for and against it simultaneously.

[excon]

Law by fiat. If the Dems want a Constitutional crisis then continue along this path. I know for a fact that the challenges are already being drafted .

Hello again, tom:

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute (NOT a liberal institution), writes, "... I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration... "

He says it all. No?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hmm, reduce the deficit (a budget matter) - 2000 pages of health care takeover mandating every American purchase insurance against the clear wishes of the people... I can't see any difference can you?

[tomder55]

Norm Ornstein wrote much of McCain-Feingold so perhaps he is familiar with unconstitutional legislation.

His body of work since straddles the efforts for nonpartisan/bipartisanship at both 'AEI ',the 'Future of American Democracy Foundation ,and 'Why Tuesday'? Dedicated to election reforms .Not exactly your run of the mill Conservative.

But that's only backround.

If you are going the route of "the Republcans did it" I say yes they have .

I'll say it again. It is unconstitutional and in fact in the Clinton V NYC case SCOTUS made it clear that the language of the bill that makes it to the President's desk has to be identical from both houses of
Congress. To do what they want to do constitutionally they need to vote and record a vote on the
Senate bill ;and then both houses have to approve a follow-up reconcilliation bill. Deem and pass is plainly unconstitutional. The house and the senate must pass the same bill for it to become law. That is in our Constitution, plain as day.

Perhaps Ornstein's taking his own political biases into account in his critique of the Republican opposition ?

What Failure Would Cost the Democrats
(pubished in the liberal 'New Republic')


YouTube - Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law

[inthebox]

Hello in:

If we were starting from scratch, it's a great idea. Be we owe zillions, and it's going to be paid one way or another. Take your pick: high taxes till we get it paid, or a debasement of the currency?

The problem isn't what's happening NOW. It's what happened... Tom talks about the prosperity Reagan created, but he created it out of whole cloth because he borrowed zillions.... So did your buddy, George W. Bush.

Bummer.... You don't mind borrowing for your wars, but it has to be paid back. No, we're not going to end unemployment benefits even though most of you, like the twinch Senator from Arizona, Kyle who thinks that those benefits keep the lazy bastards at home and not out looking for work. Starving would be the incentive you'd employ....

excon

Ever hear of the Laffer curve?

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future | The Heritage Foundation

Basically raising taxes, raises revenues by collecting more cents per dollar, but this is more than offset by the negative economic impact of inhibiting or reducing economic growth overall.

The average person lives with the economic reality of a budget. One side is income and the other is expenses. Most of us try to keep that even and some, not enough, try to save.

Our government also has an income: tax revenue which is directly related to economic growth. No economic growth, no increase in tax revenue. A bigger slice of a shrinking pie does not mean it is actually bigger than a smaller piece of a larger pie. Show me where raising taxes causes economic growth??

Our government also has a major spending problem. Like a household budget, whether you make $ 40,000 or $ 400,000 if you spend more than your income, you are going into debt. The problem with the politicians is that they don't care or are ignorant of these simple economic realities. They can make promises to the sheeple, while it is the taxpayors that foot the bill. Worse yet, they use taxpayor dollars for their own political gains.

The other problem is that 50% of taxes are paid for by the 50% of the "wealthiest," while only 3% of taxes are paid for by the 50% that are not "wealthy." So those who don't pay into the system, don't really have any "skin" in the game. So there is no thought that, if congress spends and spends, I'm responsible for paying for it.

G&P