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

[Craig234]

You're right. I had recalled his opposition to monopolies, but forgetten that it had to do with intellectual property rather than the way the term is more commonly used today.

- wolf

My previous post's statement about the two unapproved amendments was wrong. I'd seen that statement recently, and forgotten the actual content, and posted that in error.

I regret the error.

While not going too much into the topic further, trying to figure out what if anything the item had mistaken for the amendments, I'll post a couple easily found Jefferson quotes:

Note the first one in particular seems to use 'monopoly' in the modern sense, rather than limited to copyright, despite the issue of monopoly being far less important then than now.

""By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline."

"In a letter to Madison, Jefferson indicated what he did not
like about the proposed Constitution. ``First the omission of a bill of
rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of
religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies,
restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the
habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury..."

"The general voice from north to south... calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. "

 

[Craig234]

The Dems and MSNBC say "the Republicans did it, then so can we"

It depends on the issue.

If the Republcans adopt an illegal plan to take huge donations from countried like China to try to win elections, the Democrats are wrong to do the same thing 'because they did'.

On the other hand, if Republicans pass a rule under Clinton needing only one Senator of a state to 'blue slip' a judicial nominee instead of two, as they did, Democrats could too.

There are things 'inherently immoral' not to copy, and things where 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' that are about things like equal rules for both sides.

The Republicans trying to pretend, for example, that reconciliation is some new thing the Democrats made up never used before are rightly attacked for using it the most previously.

If there's something inherently immoral about a 'majority vote' reconciliation allows that justified attacking its use even if the other side did it, make that case.

Good luck arguing that, in an environemnt where it's needed because the Republicans are filibustering about everything putting politics ahead of the nation.

And then add in that nearly all Medical bills have been passed through reconciliation.

Rep. Slaughter just made a press statement concerning the procedure, saying that they absolutely plan to use this procedure, and that they are just upset that the public found out about it. We were never supposed to learn of this maneuver.

Link? I'd like to see how accurate that paraphrase is.

 

[daishi5]

My previous post's statement about the two unapproved amendments was wrong. I'd seen that statement recently, and forgotten the actual content, and posted that in error.

I regret the error.

While not going too much into the topic further, trying to figure out what if anything the item had mistaken for the amendments, I'll post a couple easily found Jefferson quotes:

Note the first one in particular seems to use 'monopoly' in the modern sense, rather than limited to copyright, despite the issue of monopoly being far less important then than now.

Just a note of historical nature, parliament and the king had recently been involved in disputes about who had the power to grant monopolies. They granted monopolies on things such as salt, gunpowder and lighthouses. Most of the issues with monopolies at that time were actually government created ones, where private citizens bought monopoly status from the king. The government also instituted a lot of monopolies in regards to the colonies, restricting who could make hats, who could be apprentices, and several other restrictions the government put in place to protect the profits of businesses in england.

I do not believe Jefferson intended to set the government up with power to prevent monopolies, but to prevent the government from creating monopolies. Now, to be fair, the mega-corporations that we are seeing today were not around in his time, so I believe he would be against them as well, but I don't think that was his intention.

 

[Harvey]

Doesn't matter. That damage will be done. They don't care about november or the will of the people, that much is obvious. Once it's done, this country is done.

Same old hypocritical Republican bullshit. You conveniently forget the history of self-executing votes.

Self-executing rule
.
.
The self-executing rule began in the 1970s. From the 95th-98th Congresses (1977-1984) the self-executing rule was used eight times, 20 times under Speaker O’Neill in the 99th Congress and 18 times under Speaker Wright in the 100th Congress. Under Speaker Gingrich there were 38 self-executing rules in the 104th Congress and 52 in the 105th Congress (1995-1998). Under Speaker Hastert there were 40 self-executing rules in the 106th Congress, 42 in the 107th Congress and 30 in the 108th Congress (1999-2007).

The House is not ducking the vote or subverting any democratic process. A vote to impliment a law through a self-executing rule must still pass by a majority vote. They're simply voting to make passage contingent on another action, in this case, passage by the Senate of the companion reconciliation bill.

In case you're arithmetically challenged, in the past, Democrats have passed self-executing bills 38 times while Republicans used it 202 times. Why is it not OK for the Democratic majority to use this rule?

Where were you when it came to complaining about it when Republicans used it?

 

[woolfe9999]

Just a note of historical nature, parliament and the king had recently been involved in disputes about who had the power to grant monopolies. They granted monopolies on things such as salt, gunpowder and lighthouses. Most of the issues with monopolies at that time were actually government created ones, where private citizens bought monopoly status from the king. The government also instituted a lot of monopolies in regards to the colonies, restricting who could make hats, who could be apprentices, and several other restrictions the government put in place to protect the profits of businesses in england.

I do not believe Jefferson intended to set the government up with power to prevent monopolies, but to prevent the government from creating monopolies. Now, to be fair, the mega-corporations that we are seeing today were not around in his time, so I believe he would be against them as well, but I don't think that was his intention.

I've been reading around the web about this for about an hour now because I had forgotten some of what I learned about Jefferson. I don't think he meant, in any of his statement, either "big business" types of monopolies *or* government created ones, unless by government created you are referring to intellectual property. I really think when he used the term he was referring exclusively to IP. He considered it a "business monopoly" because that is in a very real sense exactly what it is, and he also considered IP to be a restraint of free commerce and free trade.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Just a note of historical nature, parliament and the king had recently been involved in disputes about who had the power to grant monopolies. They granted monopolies on things such as salt, gunpowder and lighthouses. Most of the issues with monopolies at that time were actually government created ones, where private citizens bought monopoly status from the king. The government also instituted a lot of monopolies in regards to the colonies, restricting who could make hats, who could be apprentices, and several other restrictions the government put in place to protect the profits of businesses in england.

I do not believe Jefferson intended to set the government up with power to prevent monopolies, but to prevent the government from creating monopolies. Now, to be fair, the mega-corporations that we are seeing today were not around in his time, so I believe he would be against them as well, but I don't think that was his intention.

I think that's a good point. I was very surprised there was almost any discussion of 'monopolies' at the time, given the hugely different nature of the economy.

I think you're right about what Jefferson 'would have said' about modern monopolies - there's plenty of what he said about principles to support it, not least of which was his position on the financial industry, but that would need a bit of time to prepare various supporting quotes etc. to get into much more.

Really, the case about monopolies in a modern context is not very relevant to the founding fathers IMO - it's more of a curiosity to see if they said anything much on it.

As you note, their economy was dominated in the monopoly department by the government of England owning the East India company that it granted preferences to.

It's pretty analogous on some effects, but focues on the government granting the monopoly rather than the private industry obtaining it in the market.

 

[cubby1223]

Where were you when it came to complaining about it when Republicans used it?

Probably, like me I never knew of this maneuver until this week.

But the partisan bullshit goes both ways. Why do those who vilified Republicans for using reconciliation, using this other maneuver, where are they now as the Democrats are using the very things they hated just a couple years ago?

 

[Craig234]

I've been reading around the web about this for about an hour now because I had forgotten some of what I learned about Jefferson. I don't think he meant, in any of his statement, either "big business" types of monopolies *or* government created ones, unless by government created you are referring to intellectual property. I really think when he used the term he was referring exclusively to IP. He considered it a "business monopoly" because that is in a very real sense exactly what it is, and he also considered IP to be a restraint of free commerce and free trade.

- wolf

I think you are going a bit too far minimizing anything but IP.

For example, a burning issue then was Hamilton's desire to create a national bank, which Jefferson opposed, somewhat analogous to monopoly.

He said a lot on it but to summarize:

The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil.
- Thomas Jefferson

But more importantly, look at the following for a real sense of his views and how they would apply to the issues today (from 1816):

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Of course, he was right, and they have.

 

[Harvey]

Probably, like me I never knew of this maneuver until this week.

But the partisan bullshit goes both ways. Why do those who vilified Republicans for using reconciliation, using this other maneuver, where are they now as the Democrats are using the very things they hated just a couple years ago?

Which Democrats "vilified" Republicans for using reconciliation and when? Don't be shy. Examples, please. It's an honest question. I don't recall Democrats blocking any legislation passed through reconciliation by Republican majorities.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
On the accountability issue, that is not the real reason the procedure is being used. Even if it is some part of the reason, it will be entirely ineffective in that purpose.

-snip-

The law professor cited in another post is trying argue, in essence, that since both bills are passed with one vote, they should be treated as one integrated bill, and therefore the Senate must vote on this new integrated bill rather than just the reconciliation bill. He is obviously incorrect as his argument is based on a bald assertion with no precedent in either the Constitution or Congressional rules. The fact is, the Senate already passed the core bill and they don't need to vote on it again.

- wolf

Nice recap of the procedure. I'm not sure it's so cut-n-dry as a Constitutional issue, and some pertinent points were omitted or glossed over:

1. The "intent" of this maneuver - While Nancy and other Dems have claimed the intent is to avoid accountability, we should think back further to the origins of these machinations; the Senate's cloture rule.

Following the election of Scott brown in MA, the cloture rule became of paramount importance. The cloture rule is what originally compelled the House down this road. This so-called "Slaughter solution" is part and parcel of the larger effort to avoid cloture.

The courts have created a judical doctrine known as 'substance over form'. Will they see these collective, and creative, procedures as substantively employed to circumvent the cloture rule? If so, would that void the bill upon passage by the Senate?

BTW: To those (others) who say this 'deem and pass' is common and being normally employed, why was it necessary to seek a specific ruling from the House Rules Commitee if precedent for this had already been set? No, a ruling was sought because they felt this situation was to be distinguished from those others where 'deem and pass' had been employed. I.e., it is unique, and new.

2. As to your assertion the Professor lacks any precedent for his argument:

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."

So, yes, he does cite precedent. Whether it will control or not remains to be seen. Whether it is to be taken as literally as he implicity asserts also remains to be seen. However, it is unlikely we will see two bills with "precisely the same text". They might be substanially the same, but is that sufficient? I don't see how one can confidently conclude it is.

3. Senate parlimentary rules (I think you omitted this in your post above?). As the professor notes " according to the Senate parliamentarian, reconciliation is permitted only for bills that amend existing law, not for amendments to bills that have yet to be enacted. This means that, for the Senate to be able to avoid a filibuster, House Democrats first have to vote for the identical bill that passed the Senate last Christmas Eve" and then have the President sign it into law.

I think it questionable that the Senate Parlimentarian is going to allow this amendment to an as-yet non-existing law, he has already ruled against that.


Cliffs (sorta):
Putting aside Constitutional issues, this bill, if passed by the House, may be seen by the Senate as one of the following:

1. A new bill requiring the cloture vote.

2. An amendment to a non-existing bill, which has already been ruled out.

3. Something proper. At this point I think that mean this is seen as an amendment to an existing law, but how one arrives at that conclusion escapes me, the President has signed nothing. As has been noted, the original Senate bill has only been 'conditionally passed", I don't see how that's sufficient. Is there another way to view this so it complies with the Parlimentarian's ruling and avoids the necessity of cloture?

I think this maneuver is unprecedented, and must pass Constitutional challenges as well as those of the Senate rules.

SO IDK the answer, but I do not think it as cut-n-dry as some would have us believe.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

2. As to your assertion the Professor lacks any precedent for his argument:

So, yes, he does cite precedent. Whether it will control or not remains to be seen. Whether it is to be taken as literally as he implicity asserts also remains to be seen. However, it is unlikely we will see two bills with "precisely the same text". They might be substanially the same, but is that sufficient? I don't see how one can confidently conclude it is.

There's no question that the exact text must be voted on in each house of Congress. What I meant is that he has no precedent to support his original premise - that two bills passed under one vote must be treated as a new, integrated bill which then would have to be voted on in full by the Senate. Here, we have a Senate bill which has already been passed and does not require another vote, and a second bill, which does require another vote. The fact that the House chooses to pass both with one formal vote does not turn them into one, integrated bill. If they *are* one integrated bill, *then* this precedent would apply, but he has not established his rather arbitrary premise.

I may have been wrong about the intent of the procedure being to avoid the trust issue. I read one news report this morning which said that the core bill would be deemed passed only in the event that the reconciliation bill passed. However, I just read another news report which says that the core bill will be deemed passed immediately. If that second report is correct, then the intent is to avoid the appearance of house members voting on the core bill. If that is all this really is, it's an incredibly stupid idea since they will never actually avoid accountability so it's best to just stay away from any procedure which even *might* be misunderstood as sneaky or deceptive, even though it's probably Constitutional.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

I think you are going a bit too far minimizing anything but IP.

For example, a burning issue then was Hamilton's desire to create a national bank, which Jefferson opposed, somewhat analogous to monopoly.

He said a lot on it but to summarize:



But more importantly, look at the following for a real sense of his views and how they would apply to the issues today (from 1816):



Of course, he was right, and they have.

I don't doubt that he admonished about the danger of large corporations, but every reference I have found to his use of the term monopoly in context of what he actually wanted in the Constitution is pretty clear he meant IP. Here is one of several bits you can find on the web:

http://www.archipelago.org/vol10-34/matsuura.htm

 

[blackangst1]

Totally wrong. The government is not charged with protecting life, it is restricted from depriving the people of it.

Thats sig worthy.

 

[Fern]

There's no question that the exact text must be voted on in each house of Congress. What I meant is that he has no precedent to support his original premise - that two bills passed under one vote must be treated as a new, integrated bill which then would have to be voted on in full by the Senate. Here, we have a Senate bill which has already been passed and does not require another vote, and a second bill, which does require another vote. The fact that the House chooses to pass both with one formal vote does not turn them into one, integrated bill. If they *are* one integrated bill, *then* this precedent would apply, but he has not established his rather arbitrary premise.

Well what do you think of the question regarding Senate rules?

If it's not a 'new integrated bill', is the second an amendment to the 1st? if so, how does one get around the Senate Parlimentarian's ruling? (Bill must be passed AND signed into law before the Senate can take up amendments via reconcilliation.)

I may have been wrong about the intent of the procedure being to avoid the trust issue. I read one news report this morning which said that the core bill would be deemed passed only in the event that the reconciliation bill passed. However, I just read another news report which says that the core bill will be deemed passed immediately. If that second report is correct, then the intent is to avoid the appearance of house members voting on the core bill. If that is all this really is, it's an incredibly stupid idea since they will never actually avoid accountability so it's best to just stay away from any procedure which even *might* be misunderstood as sneaky or deceptive, even though it's probably Constitutional.

I don't think you're wrong, I think it's more a matter of several "intents" here. The original intention being getting around cloture, that led us to the 'trust issue' (because the House must pass the Senate version and trust they will accept the House's changes) and 'accountability' has joined the party (again, arising from the necessity of passing the original Senate version to avoid cloture).

I agree, this attempt to avoid accountability for voting for the Senate version is stupid; nobody's gonna buy it. And I believe the accountability issue w/b moot but for the trust issue. If the House members could trust the Senate to get rid of the objectionable parts I don't see how there could be an accountability problem. Of course, one could say neither of those would be a problem but for the cloture problem.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

Our form of government may be on the brink of changing before our very eyes. This could become the new way to pass legislation. Congress should be careful because Obama may just wake up one day to the realization that he no longer requires their services.

Have the SEIU or AFSCME craft the bills and he can sign them into law. Well, at that point, the signature would be immaterial.

 

[Danube]

There have been self executing rules before but not self-executing votes on bills. All bills have rules and parameters that get set in Congress - that's why there is rules committee. Such rules are not intended to replace a vote though and they haven't been used that way. The Slaughter gymnastics are "novel" and that's being nice. I almost wish they would do it just so it gets shot down by states on constitutional grounds latter.

 

[Patranus]

There have been self executing rules before but not self-executing votes on bills. All bills have rules and parameters that get set in Congress - that's why there is rules committee. Such rules are not intended to replace a vote though and they haven't been used that way. The Slaughter gymnastics are "novel" and that's being nice. I almost wish they would do it just so it gets shot down by states on constitutional grounds latter.

I would think that the Constitution would supersede Congressional rules (wasn't there a Supreme Court case about this a while back?)

In any event, if self executing rules have been used to pass legislation in the past, that only means that those peaces of legislation were passed unconstitutionally. Just because something was done incorrectly in the past doesn't make it ok to do.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well what do you think of the question regarding Senate rules?

If it's not a 'new integrated bill', is the second an amendment to the 1st? if so, how does one get around the Senate Parlimentarian's ruling? (Bill must be passed AND signed into law before the Senate can take up amendments via reconcilliation.)



I don't think you're wrong, I think it's more a matter of several "intents" here. The original intention being getting around cloture, that led us to the 'trust issue' (because the House must pass the Senate version and trust they will accept the House's changes) and 'accountability' has joined the party (again, arising from the necessity of passing the original Senate version to avoid cloture).

I agree, this attempt to avoid accountability for voting for the Senate version is stupid; nobody's gonna buy it. And I believe the accountability issue w/b moot but for the trust issue. If the House members could trust the Senate to get rid of the objectionable parts I don't see how there could be an accountability problem. Of course, one could say neither of those would be a problem but for the cloture problem.

Fern

No, the second bill is not an "amendment." Amendment is a Congressional term of art. It means a modification of a bill that is in process, not a law which is on the books. The second bill is, rather, another bill entirely, which happens to modify an existing law. Such a thing can be done contemporaneous to the first piece of legislation, or 10 years later.

The trouble is, IF the first news report I read is correct and the core bill will only be deemed passed IF the reconciliation bill passes FIRST, then technically the reconciliation bill is modifying a bill which doesn't yet exist. What I'm saying is that I don't know if it's kosher to pass the reconciliation bill first in time because the bill is technically meaningless without the first bill already having been enacted into law. Actually, I can see the argument of treating it as an amendment if it is handled this way, because the core bill would still be a bill and not yet a law.

Which leads me to conclude that the second news report I read is actually the correct one - that the House will vote directly to pass the reconciliation bill and to have the core bill immediately "deemed passed." That means when the reconciliation bill hits the Senate, the Senate's core bill will already be a law on the books. While this is probably kosher, as I said before I don't see the point in it. What you said earlier about substance over form is not, in this case, so much a problem with the legality of the process as it is a reflection of the non-viability of trying to avoid accountability. It's like they're saying "we didn't vote to pass the HRC bill. We voted that it will pass without a formal vote." There is, in substance, zero difference between the two. The only difference is how the votes are recorded formally in the Register, and I don't think any voters are going to care about that. Some might, however, misunderstand the process and think it's a trick, which it sort of is, but it isn't really one of any substance of consequence.

Perhaps it isn't Pelosi who is being stupid here. I am thinking that a couple of wavering dems in the House, in conservative districts, somehow think they get some political cover by doing it this way, so they are telling Pelosi that they will only vote yes if it is done this way. And Pelosi will of course, at this point, do anything within the law to get their votes. And so it goes.

- wolf

 

[spidey07]

Our form of government may be on the brink of changing before our very eyes. This could become the new way to pass legislation. Congress should be careful because Obama may just wake up one day to the realization that he no longer requires their services.

Have the SEIU or AFSCME craft the bills and he can sign them into law. Well, at that point, the signature would be immaterial.

Exactly. We are watching how dictatorship is formed, in our own country. Obama said this is what he wanted. And the house is a willing participant as that's what they want as well.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Exactly. We are watching how dictatorship is formed, in our own country. Obama said this is what he wanted. And the house is a willing participant as that's what they want as well.

Get your goosestep going, heil Derbamma

 

[Brainonska511]

Exactly. We are watching how dictatorship is formed, in our own country. Obama said this is what he wanted. And the house is a willing participant as that's what they want as well.

The sky is falling!

Pulleeze!

At least put some critical thought into your posts instead of just taking a dump right on this forum.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The sky is falling!

Pulleeze!

At least put some critical thought into your posts instead of just taking a dump right on this forum.

Check out his parody fail in OT that got immediately locked

What a troll

 

[Patranus]

The sky is falling!

Pulleeze!

At least put some critical thought into your posts instead of just taking a dump right on this forum.

Cap & Tax cant pass congress?
Don't worry, Obama will just order the EPA to issue new regulations.

Congress won't form a debt panel?
Don't worry, Obama will just issue an executive order.

Can't pass net neutrality?
Don't worry, Obama will just order the FCC to start regulating the internet.

 

[spidey07]

The sky is falling!

Pulleeze!

At least put some critical thought into your posts instead of just taking a dump right on this forum.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I really, really, really do.

 

[herm0016]

R's have used this to pass things like a ban of smoking on airplanes, not something that will change every persons life, and raise taxes on many of us, and change the way we do business.