When the Constitution gets in Pelosi's way, she'll just ignore it....

[RedChief]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution -

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.

Oh and there may already be a SCOTUS ruling on this. When they overturned the line-item veto, Justice Stevens wrote:

If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105—33 would not have been validly enacted. [Emphasis added] If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature.

Something that might be known as 'Public Law 105—33 as modified by the President' may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may 'become a law' pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution.

 

[Jiggz]

Pretty soon we'll be under a Totalitarian/Dictatorial form of gov't! Need to restore the check & balance in the gov't comes Nov 2010! Never again vote for "Change"!

 

[Jhhnn]

From the article-

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" has been commonly used"

Reminds me of the repub uproar over the reconciliation process, also commonly used, particularly by them...

Any port in a storm, anything to keep the Faithful's panties in a knot... anything to stay on the big "health industry" gravy train...

 

[CycloWizard]

From the article-

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" has been commonly used"

Reminds me of the repub uproar over the reconciliation process, also commonly used, particularly by them...

Any port in a storm, anything to keep the Faithful's panties in a knot... anything to stay on the big "health industry" gravy train...

There are two ways to incapacitate a date rape victim. One is to approach her from behind and ask politely, "Does this rag smell like chloroform?" The other is to slip a roofie in her drink when she's not looking. In both cases, there is no consent and you're only out to further your own agenda. In the latter case, you don't even have the balls to confront her. Nancy tried the first, but she didn't saturate the rag. Now she's going for the end-around, the roofie in the drink, in an effort to push her own agenda forward at the expense of everyone who will not consent to it. But that agenda is your agenda, so you're ok with it. Your parents must be so proud.

 

[palehorse]

There are two ways to incapacitate a date rape victim. One is to approach her from behind and ask politely, "Does this rag smell like chloroform?" The other is to slip a roofie in her drink when she's not looking. In both cases, there is no consent and you're only out to further your own agenda. In the latter case, you don't even have the balls to confront her. Nancy tried the first, but she didn't saturate the rag. Now she's going for the end-around, the roofie in the drink, in an effort to push her own agenda forward at the expense of everyone who will not consent to it. But that agenda is your agenda, so you're ok with it. Your parents must be so proud.

brilliant!

 

[Patranus]

Pelosi is going to get someone killed.

 

[Red Dawn]

There are two ways to incapacitate a date rape victim. One is to approach her from behind and ask politely, "Does this rag smell like chloroform?" The other is to slip a roofie in her drink when she's not looking. In both cases, there is no consent and you're only out to further your own agenda. In the latter case, you don't even have the balls to confront her.

Finally you post something you're well versed in

 

[QuantumPion]

From the article-

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" has been commonly used"

Reminds me of the repub uproar over the reconciliation process, also commonly used, particularly by them...

Any port in a storm, anything to keep the Faithful's panties in a knot... anything to stay on the big "health industry" gravy train...

So republicans demanding an up-or-down vote for the constitutionally required advice and consent of appointed justices that have a clear majority - that is tyrannical nazi fascism. But Pelosi nationalizing 1/6 of the US economy without even voting on it because she knows a majority would vote against it - that is fine and dandy by you.

k.

 

[Throckmorton]

So republicans demanding an up-or-down vote for the constitutionally required advice and consent of appointed justices that have a clear majority - that is tyrannical nazi fascism. But Pelosi nationalizing 1/6 of the US economy without even voting on it because she knows a majority would vote against it - that is fine and dandy by you.

k.

Are you completely unaware of reality, or do you just not know what the word "nationalize" means?

 

[MotF Bane]

From the article-

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" has been commonly used"

Reminds me of the repub uproar over the reconciliation process, also commonly used, particularly by them...

Any port in a storm, anything to keep the Faithful's panties in a knot... anything to stay on the big "health industry" gravy train...

So because one party uses the tactic, it's fine for the other too, and we shouldn't have any improvement?

 

[nonlnear]

From the article-

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" has been commonly used"

Reminds me of the repub uproar over the reconciliation process, also commonly used, particularly by them...

Any port in a storm, anything to keep the Faithful's panties in a knot... anything to stay on the big "health industry" gravy train...

However in light of Obama's campaign promises of an era of unequaled transparency there isn't really any justification for invoking the "but they did it too" argument. Or was he just lying his as off?

 

[Throckmorton]

So because one party uses the tactic, it's fine for the other too, and we shouldn't have any improvement?

We can "improve" it after we enact healthcare reform. I'm sure the folks whose lives are saved will appreciate that.

 

[Danube]

A Stanford law prof wrote in WSJ that the Slaughter bit isn't constitutional:

BY MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL

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. Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

The Slaughter solution cannot be squared with Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution....


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. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that."

Michael W McConnell is a constitutional law scholar who served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002 until 2009. McConnell is now Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html


Since article may be blocked due to subscription the full article is on site below:

http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/950

 

[MotF Bane]

We can "improve" it after we enact healthcare reform. I'm sure the folks whose lives are saved will appreciate that.

So to you, the ends justify the means, even when the ends are admitted, even by many of the leftists here, to be poor solutions?

 

[nonlnear]

So to you, the ends justify the means, even when the ends are admitted, even by many of the leftists here, to be poor solutions?

They are only poor solutions to the problems they claim to be addressing.

 

[Throckmorton]

So to you, the ends justify the means, even when the ends are admitted, even by many of the leftists here, to be poor solutions?

Seems like a GREAT solution to the abuse of the filibuster by Republicans. The Constitution doesn't say anything about a 60 vote majority, yet that has become the de facto standard thanks to politically motivated obstructionism.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Oh noes! The poor constitution!!!!! You guys crack me up

If a democrat takes a dump it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! Your new found love of the constitution is about as transparent as your desire to reform healthcare in any way.

"We really want to fix healthcare, we promise. Just not now or in the next 30yrs or so, but after that we are prepared to really make some progress"

 

[CycloWizard]

Finally you post something you're well versed in

I guess you're feeling owned by association. I can take the rather weak personal attacks.

 

[Bateluer]

Another article on the same subject.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...5/playing-the-history-card/?cid=hp:mainpromo1

 

[Red Dawn]

I guess you're feeling owned by association. I can take the rather weak personal attacks.

Does that mean we'll be getting more of your irrelevant analogies?

 

[Genx87]

Constitution is just a piece of paper - George W. Bush

And Pelosi agree's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nobodyknows]

I guess you're feeling owned by association.

What?? Did you drug Red too??

 

[JTsyo]

While I'm not a fan of filibuster, I don't think this is the right way to approach it. All this does is make things more convoluted and bypass what Congress should be doing. If Senators shouldn't be allowed to filibuster, make that the rule, don't make up rules to go around it. Hopefully the courts don't let Congress play these law games.

 

[CycloWizard]

Does that mean we'll be getting more of your irrelevant analogies?

Your inability to understand an analogy does not render it irrelevant. Or is it that you don't understand what Nancy is suggesting here? Or is it that you don't mind back-room deals as long as they come out in your favor? Or do you think the American people have consented to being bent over for this POS healthcare bill?

 

[rudder]

From the article-

Reminds me of the repub uproar over the reconciliation process, also commonly used, particularly by them...

..

Republicans used it for budget purposes... here it is being used for something that will drastically change the commitments of the government and fark with a lot of people's healthcare. There is a reason why there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.