Slaughtering the Constitution

**Freedom** · 18th March 2010 19:36

f Pelosi Has the Votes, Then Why Does the House Need the Slaughter Solution to Pass ObamaCare
by SusanAnne Hiller

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bluffing here when she says:

'“Yes,” Pelosi said when asked if she believed the House would end up having the votes to approve healthcare.

“If we took it up today, yes,” the speaker quickly added.

The speaker still cautioned, though, that the timing and actual vote count on the bill couldn’t be entirely set in stone until the final legislative language was finalized and until the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivers its score of the bill’s impact.'

There is no chance Pelosi has the votes to pass ObamaCare and she knows it. If she did have the votes, she would have already had the vote and wouldn’t need the 'Slaughter Solution.'

'House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said.'

The Slaughter Solution has one very large obstacle–the Constitution Article I, Section 7–which states:

'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.

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, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.'

Clearly, this Congress is so desperate to pass ObamaCare, despite the American people’s utter hatred of the bill and everything it represents–including the path to socialism and government control of the people. However, if this Congress continues down this path of violating the Constitution, the 'people' will have a viable case, class-action or otherwise, in the US courts because it is going to be extremely difficult for a judge to ignore that the 111th Democrat-Progressive led Congress violated Article I, Section 7 to the most obscene extent

If Pelosi Has the Votes, Then Why Does the House Need the Slaughter Solution to Pass ObamaCare - Big Government

These people are traitors they took an oath to defend the constitution not trample on it. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have no respect whatsoever for the Constitution. Nor do they care one iota what the American people think. They are on a suicide mission, but don't care. Just get socialized medicine passed. The Constitution be damned.

**russellsimpson** · 18th March 2010 19:42

House...smouse.

traitor...freighter

Constitution ain't nothing but another piece of paper, eh.

Bush said it and I agree with him.

**Killing Me Softly 101** · 18th March 2010 20:03

Thanks for sharing but.......

Watch it: Think Progress 34 Of 41 Senate Republicans Supported Passing Major Domestic Policy Legislation*£$%^%Through Reconciliation... /

34 Of 41 Senate Republicans Supported Passing Major Domestic Policy Legislation Through Reconciliation

As the outlook on passage of health reform improves, Republicans have shifted to a new obstructionist strategy: attacking the process of reconciliation. Republicans claim that reconciliation was only intended to be used for bills dealing closely with the budget. In fact, when Republicans were in power, GOP lawmakers used reconciliation numerous times to pass major domestic policy legislation, including the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and important changes to health care policy. In fact, 34 of the 41 Senate Republicans have used reconciliation in the past to pass major pieces of domestic policy.

In 2005, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) famously defended reconciliation as “majority rules.” Think Progress has compiled a video of some of these 34 senators who have, in the past, defended reconciliation and railed against the filibuster. Some highlights:

– “If you’ve got 51 votes for your position, you win.” — Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), 3/15/05

– “For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/15/99

– “It [the filibuster] is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.” — Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 5/19/05

– “Filibusters are neither an idea of the founding fathers nor a historical tradition of the Senate.” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), 4/27/05

Watch it:

The full list of Senate Republicans who have used reconciliation to pass major domestic policy, as well as a list of those pieces of legislation can be found after the jump:

Major domestic policy legislation that these 34 Senators have voted for through reconciliation in the past 20 years: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

Senator State Senator State
Lamar Alexander Tennessee
Judd Gregg New Hampshire
John Barrasso Wyoming
Orrin Hatch Utah
Robert Bennett Utah
Kay Bailey Hutchison Texas
Christopher Bond Montana
James Inhofe Oklahoma
Sam Brownback Kansas
Johnny Isakson Georgia
Jim Bunning Kentucky
Jon Kyl Arizona
Richard Burr North Carolina
Richard Lugar Indiana
Tom Coburn Oklahoma
John McCain Arizona
Susan Collins Maine
Mitch McConnell Kentucky
Bob Corker Tennessee
Lisa Murkowski Alaska
John Cornyn Texas
Pat Roberts Kansas
Mike Crapo Idaho
Jeff Sessions Alabama
James DeMint Sourth Carolina
Richard Shelby Alabama
John Ensign Nevada
Olympia Snowe Maine
Mike Enzi Wyoming
John Thune South Dakota
Lindsey Graham South Carolina
David Vitter Louisiana
Chuck Grassley Iowa
George Voinovich Ohio

The House and Senate first used the budget reconciliation process in 1980. Since then, 19 reconciliation bills have been enacted into law, and three have been vetoed.[QUOTE]
Contrary to claims that it would be a break with past practice to use the reconciliation process to enact legislation — like health reform — that makes major changes in policy, reconciliation bills have been used in the past to do just that.
Welfare Reform. In 1996, a Republican Congress used the reconciliation process to enact sweeping welfare reform legislation making the most dramatic changes in the safety net in decades. Upon Senate passage, Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), chair of the Budget Committee, stated, “A system that has failed in every aspect will now be thrown away. We’ll start over with a new system.”[10]
2001 Tax Cuts. In 2001, another Republican Congress used the reconciliation process to enact the largest and most sweeping tax cuts in 20 years. [11] That reconciliation bill, which featured dramatic reductions in both income and estate taxes, swelled the federal budget deficit by an estimated $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period (and actually by much more than that, since hundreds of billions of dollars in costs were masked through sunsets and timing gimmicks).[12] President George W. Bush, who had proposed the tax cuts during the 2000 campaign, called the signing of the bill an “historic moment” that “does not come often.”[13]
2003 Tax Cuts. In 2003, despite the return of large deficits, Congress used the reconciliation process to enact still another round of massive tax cuts. Although the “official” cost of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was held down through the extensive further use of budget gimmicks, its actual price tag approached $1 trillion over ten years.[14]
Congress also has used reconciliation in the past to establish entirely new health coverage programs or to substantially expand existing ones.
Children’s Health Insurance Program. Reconciliation legislation enacted in 1997 created the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now provides subsidized coverage to 7 million children.
Medicare Advantage. The 1997 reconciliation law also established the Medicare+Choice program, now termed Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage program currently serves 10.4 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Continuation of Employer-Sponsored Coverage. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 established new rules under which workers leaving employment with a firm that offers health insurance can remain enrolled in the employer’s health plan for a specified period of time if the worker pays the premiums. COBRA also makes continuation of coverage available to spouses and children of workers upon the death of the worker, loss of dependent status, or other specified circumstances.
As Thomas Mann, Molly Reynolds, and Norman Ornstein have written, “[T]he precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes [is] much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.” They point out that “many of the [past] reconciliation bills made major changes in policy. Health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts, and student aid reform were all enacted under reconciliation procedures.” While use of reconciliation to enact comprehensive health reform legislation would be ambitious, they conclude, “it fits a pattern used over three decades by both parties to avoid the strictures of Senate filibusters.”[15] Using it to make some changes in the mandatory spending and revenue policies contained in the Senate-passed health reform bill is well within the boundaries of past practice.
/QUOTE]
Oh well, time to stop watching Faux News.

**Freedom** · 18th March 2010 20:11

In 2005, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) famously defended reconciliation as “majority rules.” Think Progress has compiled a video of some of these 34 senators who have, in the past, defended reconciliation and railed against the filibuster. Some highlights:

– “If you’ve got 51 votes for your position, you win.” — Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), 3/15/05

– “For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/15/99

– “It is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.” — Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 5/19/05

– “Filibusters are neither an idea of the founding fathers nor a historical tradition of the Senate.” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), 4/27/05

Watch it: Think Progress 34 Of 41 Senate Republicans Supported Passing Major Domestic Policy Legislation*£$%^%Through Reconciliation... /

34 Of 41 Senate Republicans Supported Passing Major Domestic Policy Legislation Through Reconciliation

As the outlook on passage of health reform improves, Republicans have shifted to a new obstructionist strategy: attacking the process of reconciliation. Republicans claim that reconciliation was only intended to be used for bills dealing closely with the budget. In fact, when Republicans were in power, GOP lawmakers used reconciliation numerous times to pass major domestic policy legislation, including the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and important changes to health care policy. In fact, 34 of the 41 Senate Republicans have used reconciliation in the past to pass major pieces of domestic policy.

In 2005, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) famously defended reconciliation as “majority rules.” Think Progress has compiled a video of some of these 34 senators who have, in the past, defended reconciliation and railed against the filibuster. Some highlights:

– “If you’ve got 51 votes for your position, you win.” — Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), 3/15/05

– “For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/15/99

– “It [the filibuster] is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.” — Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 5/19/05

– “Filibusters are neither an idea of the founding fathers nor a historical tradition of the Senate.” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), 4/27/05

Watch it:

The full list of Senate Republicans who have used reconciliation to pass major domestic policy, as well as a list of those pieces of legislation can be found after the jump:

You should actually do some reading before you get your cookie cutter responses KMS. This is not reconciliation that I am talking about but rather a procedure for the House, not the Senate, to pass obamacare without actually voting for it.

---Update---

Yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed the rumored Slaughter Rule to send the Senate passed Obamacare bill to the President without a direct up-or-down vote in the House. Don’t believe those on the left who are trying to argue that because Republicans used deeming resolutions when they were in power, it is ok for Democrats to use a similar tactic to pass legislation without a vote.

Under this procedure, the House would vote on a rule setting up debate. The House would then skip a vote on the Senate passed version of Obamacare and move directly to a vote on reconciliation amendments to that Senate passed bill. If reconciliation passes, then the House will deem the Senate bill to have passed the House without a direct vote. As Michael McConnell wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, this is yet another reason Obamacare would be unconstitutional.

Pelosi explained the need for this procedure yesterday: “I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” Many Democrats could vote for the rule and claim that they are against the Senate bill.

Obamacare Slaughter Rule is without Precedent | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Maybe this would clairfy 'deem and pass".

**Killing Me Softly 101** · 18th March 2010 20:17

Is Deem and Pass a vote?

So then they do vote for it.

Senate passed a Health Reform Bill.
House passed a Health Reform Bill.

So it already Passed.

But your Republican Party of NO, just wants to continue to be a part of the Problem and not part of the solution.

**Freedom** · 18th March 2010 20:40

then why not directly vote on the bill itself?

**johnny larue** · 18th March 2010 21:47

Originally Posted by russellsimpson

Constitution ain't nothing but another piece of paper, eh. Bush said it and I agree with him.

Maybe you are referencing Thailand here.

Originally Posted by Killing Me Softly 101

Senate passed a Health Reform Bill. House passed a Health Reform Bill.

Very different bills

Originally Posted by Killing Me Softly 101

So it already Passed.

THEY - not it.

Originally Posted by Killing Me Softly 101

But your Republican Party of NO, just wants to continue to be a part of the Problem and not part of the solution.

The problem is and has been that although the dems have a majority in both houses, THE DEMS can not agree within their own party.

**kenkannif** · 19th March 2010 08:46

Opposing views on it here as well:

snopes.com: Michael Connelly on the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform

Although like they say will only know when and if cases are brought forward to the courts to challenge 'em!!!

**Freedom** · 20th March 2010 09:59

Constitution ain't nothing but another piece of paper, eh.

The Constitution only matters when it is misapplied against Conservatives / GOP. From what I understand the House would vote on a packages of fixes for the Senate version of the bill which the House members object. The House would not vote on the actual Senate version of the bill. The only way that the President can sign a bill into law is if the language from both the House and the Senate bills are identical which in this case they are not. America will turn into a banana republic if this bill passes via the "deem and pass".

Thread: Slaughtering the Constitution

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Slaughtering the Constitution

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Thailand Constitution 2007

Constitution breakthrough

Obsessed with Constitution

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions