The Speaker of the House’s preferred strategy on passing the Senate’s health care reform bill seems to be declining to vote on it:
Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.
The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
The government we deserve.
…she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
There’s that “most-open and transparent administration *evah*” at work again.
So, instead of just identifying and voting out the Dems who are actually in favor of this pile of dog-spew, she must prefer that we vote out *all* incumbent Dems.
Works for me.
So, instead of including a check with my tax return, I’ll just write that I “deem” my taxes to be paid. I’m good with that. I can use that three grand or so to buy more guns.
Best idea I’ve heard all day–on both counts.
Ammo and MREs
The sociological equivalent of Cheyne-Stokes respiration.
Is that why the Dems are the cyanotic party?
LOL!
The citizens of the United States did not deserve Pelosi–the fault for her rests entirely upon the intellectually challenged voters of San Francisco.
Say, Virgil, how much does that Barbancourt cost? The cheap beer doesn’t seem to dull the pain enough, with this kind of stuff going down.
4, 8, or 15 year? I think I paid just under $19 for the bottle of 8 year I bought last weekend.
A question for you alcohol drinkers. I am a teetotaler, so i don’t know the answer to this. I was watching an old ADAM-12 episode, and it was the Sgt’s anniversary, and all 28 men on the watch kicked in a buck apiece to get Sgt. McDonald and his wife something. I checked with the Consumer Price Index’s constant dollar converter, and the $28.00 in 1971, the time of the show, would be worth $128.75 now. They bought a bottle of champagne that cost 27.85. As I said, I know nothing about the price of liquors and wines. Would 128 bucks get you a real nice bottle of champagne?
I can see this going straight to the Supreme Court. This woman is not only nuts, she’s drunk with power.
The Supremes have already ruled on it in Clinton vs. New York back in 1998 (according to an article by Tony Blankley). The ruling would seem sound unless one is trying to parse it so that the meaning of “is” could be subject for debate.
Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution states, “(1) “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”; and, (2) “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 you aren’t recorded as voting for it, it didn’t pass or fail. Some have tried voting “present” rather than take a stand, and of those some have achieved higher office. Voting “present” does violate this Section but if it makes no difference there’s little point in prosecuting the matter.
A vote of “present” cannot be mistaken for a vote of “yea” in any event.
A vote of “yea” for amendments that include passing the original bill is going to be awfully difficult to justify back home as a vote for some amendments only. It’s a vote for the whole bill, nothing less, and that vote will be recorded in the ledger.
– Max
Latest on the Pelosi hit parade of hypocrisy:
Byron — you are right. This is only the start of the legal wrangling over this.
Oh, yeah. Neal Boortz has been ranting about this in detail, for hours.
Obama and Kucinich on the same plane – sigh. This bill will pass and it will be one of those where in 6 months you won’t be able to find a dem holding their hand aloft proudly stating “why yes I voted for that bill”. Duck and cover it will be.
Like the Germans, G-man. Pre WWII 50 million Germans going Seig Heil! Post WWII couldn’t find a German who had ever saluted–’cept if Hitler were reincarnated half the 80+ crowd (and the now age 40-50 Bader-Mienhoff era crowd) would STILL salute!
You’s be surprised how many Germans I knew wished for a return to the 30s under Hitler.
By and large, the general German populace has node idea what transpired under Hitler, other than the loss to the allies. Much of the history written by so called historians about that period in Germany is utter bilge.
Anyone know if this procedure has ever passed Supreme Court scrutiny?
Not in the Supreme Court, but I believe it did pass Federal muster in the aforementioned Pelosi/Waxman/Slaughter challenge. They lost that case; they will probably win this one.
There was a posting about that on NR this morning:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzFjYTQxODU3MGUyZDUyNjY2N2U2NmVmMWExYTU4NjE=
It will depend on how far up the chain it goes. I think Waxman didn’t take it far because they saw the potential for themselves. The fact is, constitutionally both the House and Senate must vote on a bill to deem it passed. Simply voting on the “rule” and causing the bill to be passed in that manner may not pass muster with SCOTUS. The rule is simply the manner in which the procedures for consideration of a bill are set.
Having said that, the loony left, and the eastern establishment have has been looking for a way to get around the constitution for years. This is just one more overt assault. It’s gratifying to see the population waking up to what’s going on. The only question that remains to be answered is it too late?
TREASON!
There, I said it. The Constitution requires that Congress actually vote on bills, not vote to “deem” it passed. If they do this, then they are in violation of the Constitution, and their oath to protect and uphold it.
I concur.
Maybe we should take a deep breath. Lex’s linked article correctly states that “deem and pass” has been “commonly used.” In fact, during the last Republican Congress, it was used 65 times (although not for such a large bill), which means it is indeed legal.
Furthermore Pelosi stated that it was only one of three different strategies she may use… “May” being the operative word.
All in all, it is all typical sausage making.
Right Flit, typical for South American countries, or Cuba.
Flit? I robbed six banks, killed four Communists, and downloaded two Donnie and Marie CD’s this morning before breakfast. So far nobody has seemed to care. Does that make what I’ve done legal or just not worth prosecuting?
As a previous note states, according to the Constitution the only votes allowed are “yea” and “nay.” I’ve been led to understand some vote “present” even to this day. Again, is that legal, illegal, or simply not worth pursuing if it made no difference?
I’d say there’s a pretty big difference between a law that has been voted upon by our elected representatives and one that was not. The former may indeed be the law of the land and the elected can be held accountable for it. The latter? It has no force of law, for it was not passed lawfully is my opinion.
– Max
TWO Donnie and Marie CD’s Max? That’s TRULY falls under the “high crimes and misdemeanors” category!
Beat me to it!
Have you *seen* Donnie or Marie recently? I’m hoping better longevity, youthful good looks and a winning smile are all side effects of the music. You know, through Osmosis.
– Max
Hey, I’m the guy who, when SDO, chose “Goin’ Coconuts” over Cathy Lee Crosby in “Coach”. So there will be NO Marie bashing while I’m here. Get it?
But Max, they’re MORMANS, my good man! What chance does a guy like me from a city who’s most popular coffee-table book is a pictorial of famous bars–present and long gone by, both dive and grand–named “Obituary Cocktail” have?
Flit, the only one here that needs a deep breath is you. Just because they have gotten away with it in the past does not make something legal. So called self executing rules have been used before and have caused conflict in the past. The Dems have been the most obstreperous on this matter, and even took it to court. It never reached the Supreme who would obligated to strike it down because the constitution requires a vote on a bill for it to be deemed to have passed.
Perhaps this is part of the jobs or stimulus bill.
It could do wonders for the demand for, and sale of, pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers. Perhaps even enliven the undertaker industry.
Just thinking… If the president signs a bill that he knows is unconstitutional, is that a high crime or misdemeanor? Maybe we can kill two birds with one 2700+ page, 2 Trillion dollar stone.
Boy, if only Navig8r, but we can dream, can’t we, “or what’s a heaven for?”
We keep this up and we’ll hog the whole Hot Mic.
We managed, Mongo! HA!
Now, would that be the coup of all coups?
Hmmm… kinda coup-coup, but fact is stranger than fiction.
So funny to see the “Johnny did bad things, so Bobby can too” argument floated out. The difference is, Johnny may have kicked the dog, while Bobby disembowled the poor canine. All equal, right? Fact is, all of the HuffPo talking points ignore that previous uses of this procedure have usually been “in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills.” The “controversial” uses by the evil Republicans, so beloved by Flit and his fellow travelers, include:
Prohibiting smoking on domestic flights of two hours or less
Enacting voluntary employment verification programs
Blocking statistical sampling in the census until the courts had ruled on it
Permitting the CIA to offer their employees early retirement
Only in some liberal parallel universe is a takeover of 1/6 of the economy, first ever federal mandates on individual citizens, creation of a multi-trillion $$$ unfunded mandate on the states, and $371 billion in new taxes, the same as letting the CIA retire their employees early. Take a breath? Really?
Dammit,Scott, Mongo & I had just managed to totally dominate “hot mic” and now you’ve gone and spoiled it–didn’t even get a screen shot!
Haha so true.