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

[Patranus]

The Chicago way ... stacking the deck.

I wonder if Obama will follow in FDRs foot steps and threaten to stack the court if it starts striking down his policies.

 

[Carmen813]

You know, I gotta say the more I read about this the more I don't like it.

I think the public would be more upset of utilizing his deem and pass strategy than if the Democrats just voted for the Senate bill and then a Reconciliation bill. Politically speaking, it's just to easy to give Conservatives another thing to start screaming about. I think the majority of people won't care that its blatant hypocrisy.

I also think it's just the wrong thing do do. I believe the Constitutional issues are real. As someone who supports this reform effort, I would be pretty upset if this gets signed into law just to have the Supreme Court label the whole thing unconstitutional because it was passed using this tactic. Just vote for the damn thing and take responsibility for it. It shouldn't be that complicated to explain to your constituents that you had to vote for a less than ideal bill, then a second bill that improved it. Constituents are the ones clamoring that this be done in multiple steps anyway

 

[nick1985]

I also think it's just the wrong thing do do. I believe the Constitutional issues are real. As someone who supports this reform effort, I would be pretty upset if this gets signed into law just to have the Supreme Court label the whole thing unconstitutional because it was passed using this tactic. Just vote for the damn thing and take responsibility for it. It shouldn't be that complicated to explain to your constituents that you had to vote for a less than ideal bill, then a second bill that improved it. Constituents are the ones clamoring that this be done in multiple steps anyway

I disagree with the legislation, but I agree with your assertions that Deem and pass is a bad idea

 

[nick1985]

why do people keep quoting that when bush never said it???

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

Because he is a tard

 

[Tom]

"in all such Cases" meaning in all cases pertaining to overriding a Presidential veto or in all cases pertaining to passing a bill. I'm thinking its the former.

It only applies to "reconsideration" as it clearly states, and as 213 years of history demonstrate. All kinds of votes take place without recorded votes, it most definitely is constitutional.

I guess Nick thinks Congress has been violating the Constitution all this time ?

 

[nick1985]

It only applies to "reconsideration" as it clearly states, and as 213 years of history demonstrate. All kinds of votes take place without recorded votes, it most definitely is constitutional.

I guess Nick thinks Congress has been violating the Constitution all this time ?

I would tell you to look at the other times it was used, then look at this case, and see the differences. If you cannot see them, you are blind.

 

[Craig234]

You know, I gotta say the more I read about this the more I don't like it.

I think the public would be more upset of utilizing his deem and pass strategy than if the Democrats just voted for the Senate bill and then a Reconciliation bill. Politically speaking, it's just to easy to give Conservatives another thing to start screaming about. I think the majority of people won't care that its blatant hypocrisy.

I also think it's just the wrong thing do do. I believe the Constitutional issues are real. As someone who supports this reform effort, I would be pretty upset if this gets signed into law just to have the Supreme Court label the whole thing unconstitutional because it was passed using this tactic. Just vote for the damn thing and take responsibility for it. It shouldn't be that complicated to explain to your constituents that you had to vote for a less than ideal bill, then a second bill that improved it. Constituents are the ones clamoring that this be done in multiple steps anyway

I haven't seen good info on the difference, if any, between the many previous uses of 'deem and pass' and this use of it. Just attacks that sound like 'we don't like this bill'.

If it were unconstitutional, I'd agree with you, but it seems unlikely to me they'll pass something they have reason to expect to get overturned.

But let's make the issue clearer for you to consider.

If you, as a supporter, were the Speaker, you might have two choices.

It's a close vote, and some votes you need from 'blue dogs' are said to be available only if you do it this way, so they can say they 'nver voted for the Senate bill'.

Memories of the dishonest attacks on Kerry about 'voting for it before he voted against it' are seeming to be an issue.

So if your two choices are 'no deep and pass, and no bill passes', or 'use deem and pass and pass the bill', which do you choose?

For the political side, consider you are also choosing 'pass the bill that helps a lot of people and helps the whole Democratic agenda to help people by having something to run on in the election', or 'ket the Republicans obstruct the Demcorats with abuse of the filibuster, and get nothing done, and lose big in the election and let the country pay a big price with the return of Republicans, possibly majorities'.

 

[Tom]

I would tell you to look at the other times it was used, then look at this case, and see the differences. If you cannot see them, you are blind.

My issue is whether or not it's constitutional, which is a simple factual matter.

If it is different than the other times it was used, so what ? A lot of things are different than other things, and then there are some things that are the same. And some things are almost the same, or less different.

What does that have to do anything ?

 

[Carmen813]

I haven't seen good info on the difference, if any, between the many previous uses of 'deem and pass' and this use of it. Just attacks that sound like 'we don't like this bill'.

If it were unconstitutional, I'd agree with you, but it seems unlikely to me they'll pass something they have reason to expect to get overturned.

But let's make the issue clearer for you to consider.

If you, as a supporter, were the Speaker, you might have two choices.

It's a close vote, and some votes you need from 'blue dogs' are said to be available only if you do it this way, so they can say they 'nver voted for the Senate bill'.

Memories of the dishonest attacks on Kerry about 'voting for it before he voted against it' are seeming to be an issue.

So if your two choices are 'no deep and pass, and no bill passes', or 'use deem and pass and pass the bill', which do you choose?

For the political side, consider you are also choosing 'pass the bill that helps a lot of people and helps the whole Democratic agenda to help people by having something to run on in the election', or 'ket the Republicans obstruct the Demcorats with abuse of the filibuster, and get nothing done, and lose big in the election and let the country pay a big price with the return of Republicans, possibly majorities'.

I think you are presenting a bit of a false choice. I think the public has learned the truth of flip-flopper diversion that hurt Kerry. People seem more aware now that legislation has to go through multiple steps, and that it is not uncommon for a person to vote for a bill in a committee before voting against it after it goes through the pork project buffer. I mean, Obama has flip-flopped on the individual mandate, but I haven't really heard much to-do about that. It was basically the defining difference between him and Clinton during the 2008 primaries.

So, in my mind, it is better to pass the reform in the tried and true "right" way. Pass the Senate bill, then immediately hold a vote passing the reconciliation amendments to it. This should not be difficult for a politician to explain to his constituents in a politically smart way. "I believe in the Constitution and health care reform. The Constitution required me to vote for a flawed piece of legislation before we could fix it. We immediately fixed those flaws. I had to make a tough choice, but I stand by it. I believe I acted in the right way for my constituents and my country." A politician accepting personal responsibility for their decisions would go a lot farther in the current political climate than using a confusing strategy that the majority of Americans won't understand. It doesn't really matter if its constitutional or not, it matters what the public thinks of it.

To me, passing a bill and having declare unconstitutional is no different for the millions of people who lack health insurance if the bill never passed at all. True, it's possible the Supreme Court wouldn't declare it unconstitutional (because in this case I would assume it would mean that EVERY piece of legislation passed using this tactic would be deemed in such a way) but I don't really trust the Supreme Court right now. I also know that, after the happiness of the legislation passing, to have it lost due to a Constitutional issue would cause me absolute heartbreak.

In regards to Blue Dogs, the final CBO numbers came out today. Blue Dogs should be jumping for joy over the deficit reduction numbers.

 

[Carmen813]

I would tell you to look at the other times it was used, then look at this case, and see the differences. If you cannot see them, you are blind.

Constitutionally speaking that shouldn't matter. I understand that this would be increasing the precedent, but it sounds like the entire precedent was unconstitutional in the first place. If the foundation is cracked, it doesn't really matter how high you build the building.

My feeling is that if the bill is passed using this House rule, and it's challenged to the Supreme Court, AND the court rules it unconstitutional, then every single piece of legislation ever passed using this tactic (Republican or Democrat) should also immediately be revoked for being unconstitutional. If not, then it's simply a partisan decision by a conservative-leaning court.

 

[nick1985]

Constitutionally speaking that shouldn't matter. I understand that this would be increasing the precedent, but it sounds like the entire precedent was unconstitutional in the first place. If the foundation is cracked, it doesn't really matter how high you build the building.

My feeling is that if the bill is passed using this House rule, and it's challenged to the Supreme Court, AND the court rules it unconstitutional, then every single piece of legislation ever passed using this tactic (Republican or Democrat) should also immediately be revoked for being unconstitutional. If not, then it's simply a partisan decision by a conservative-leaning court.

I agree with you 100%.


Might be the 1st and last time I ever say that. :awe: