Democrats have used self-executing rule over a hundred times

[Truthmatters]

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf


You people are making shit up again.

READ the definition.

It is done to reconcile bills that have passed the house and senate.

Using the Senate bill as the reconciliation of the two is in NO WAY outside the bounds of this definition.

You people do NOTHING but make up lies to pretend you are right

 

[Truthmatters]

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting”
rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete
policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to
be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will
lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed”
provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole.”

 

[Truthmatters]

Traditional Use. Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action
in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the
precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), selfexecuting
rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the
[Senate] amendment.” Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are
sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution
as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by
that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is
required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.”
“Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions
correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.
Contemporary Use. Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving




pretending that the bills they are reconciling have not passed their bodies is a LIE.

This is the traditional definition from the house rules commitee site itself.

There is no differance is what the Dems are doing and this TRADITIONAL definition.

This is why your party is dying and will continue to die. Lies are no way to run a country and you have nothing but lies left in yuour bags of tricks.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yeah I thought so.

Your lies will NO LONGER be allowed to stand.

 

[boedicca]

I knew you couldn't it - and would resort to just lobbing insults.

Enough. You are boring, and that is the worst sin of all on an internet forum.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are wrong and yuou know you are wrong , you are just so insecure you refuse to admitt your arguement failed and that there is SOME differeance in this usage of the self exicuting rule from the use of it hundereds of times by the Rs.

The difinition of the term by the house rules site sinks your bastadization of the definition.

You failed and it is plain to see your lies failed.

You wont return because you cant handle facing the REAL facts.

 

[hboats]

Let me see if I can clear this up one more time for truthmatters.

The Reconciliation Process is used on bills that have passed BOTH the House and Senate. That is what the Democrats were originally talking about doing, but since they currently don't have the votes they want to change the rules.

They now want to use the Slaughter Rule in addition to the Reconciliation Process. They want to take the bill that the Senate passed and just say that since the House passed a similar bill (which in its self isn't true, the bills are anything but similar) that the Senate bill is passed in the House without voting on it. THAT is the part that I'm saying hasn't been done before, and until you show me a specific example of it being done, you can stuff your "you lie" where the sun don't shine.

They are trying to combine the Reconciliation Process with the Slaughter Rule to deem a bill that the Senate passed to be passed by the House without a vote (Slaughter Rule), then reconcile it with the bill that passed in the House previously (Reconciliation).

Now, if that doesn't make it clear to you, I give up. If you don't see it with that explanation you'll never see it.

Rick

 

[Truthmatters]

I knew you couldn't it - and would resort to just lobbing insults.

Enough. You are boring, and that is the worst sin of all on an internet forum.

Often to LYING sacks of shit the truth is boring.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

 

[Oldandtired]

Let me see if I can clear this up one more time for truthmatters.

The Reconciliation Process is used on bills that have passed BOTH the House and Senate. That is what the Democrats were originally talking about doing, but since they currently don't have the votes they want to change the rules.

They now want to use the Slaughter Rule in addition to the Reconciliation Process. They want to take the bill that the Senate passed and just say that since the House passed a similar bill (which in its self isn't true, the bills are anything but similar) that the Senate bill is passed in the House without voting on it. THAT is the part that I'm saying hasn't been done before, and until you show me a specific example of it being done, you can stuff your "you lie" where the sun don't shine.

They are trying to combine the Reconciliation Process with the Slaughter Rule to deem a bill that the Senate passed to be passed by the House without a vote (Slaughter Rule), then reconcile it with the bill that passed in the House previously (Reconciliation).

Now, if that doesn't make it clear to you, I give up. If you don't see it with that explanation you'll never see it.

Rick

She is very passionate about her sentiments and I commend her for that.

Her problem is she only wants to orate and be right...she does not want to learn.

Yesterday she kept on referring to the unemployment numbers in her effort to prove that the New Deal ended the depression....and all I tried to tell her was that it is a no brainer that unemployment numbers will decrease if you throw billions into infrastructure projects...but it does not mean it was what took us out of the depression....and all I got in return were accusations of lying and very foul language.

I found it entertaining.....but sad.

 

[Truthmatters]

Let me see if I can clear this up one more time for truthmatters.

The Reconciliation Process is used on bills that have passed BOTH the House and Senate. That is what the Democrats were originally talking about doing, but since they currently don't have the votes they want to change the rules.a health care bill has passed both the house and senate fool and now they are using self executing rules (which has been used hundereds of times by Rs)

They now want to use the Slaughter Rule in addition to the Reconciliation Process. They want to take the bill that the Senate passed and just say that since the House passed a similar bill (which in its self isn't true, the bills are anything but similar) that the Senate bill is passed in the House without voting on it. THAT is the part that I'm saying hasn't been done before, and until you show me a specific example of it being done, you can stuff your "you lie" where the sun don't shine.You are wrong and teh constitutional scholar Mann disagrees with you right wing bullshit designed to cloud the issue

They are trying to combine the Reconciliation Process with the Slaughter Rule to deem a bill that the Senate passed to be passed by the House without a vote (Slaughter Rule), then reconcile it with the bill that passed in the House previously (Reconciliation).Read the house rules definitions I provided and realise you have bought a right wing load of shit in place of the truth

Now, if that doesn't make it clear to you, I give up. If you don't see it with that explanation you'll never see it.

Rick

I will trust the House rules definition and a constitutional scholars view over some internet right wing hacks thank you very much.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now tell me you read any of the provided information prooving my points?

Instead you will take the OPINIONS of right wing internet posters words as fact instead.

 

[uscitizen]

They were wrong to use it, but had they used it to say privatize Social Security you might actually have a point

So because didn't use it on a large thing, that makes it okay?

That's like saying, "well it's okay, they only robbed a house instead of a bank."

You can admit in hindsight they were wrong, but this is the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Don't allow the RNC to string you along thinking they haven't pulled this bullshit either. Because odds are, they are the ones who were masters of it and the Dems took good notes.

But Dems are not allowed to pull the same tricks the repubs do.
Somehow it is just not fair from a whiney republican point of view.

 

[Truthmatters]

Traditional Use. Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action
[in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the
precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), selfexecuting
rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the
[Senate] amendment.”[ Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are
sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution
as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by
that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is
required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.”
“Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions
correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.
Contemporary Use. Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving

That is using it to reconcile senate amendments to a house passed bill.

This is the traditional use folks.

They are voting on this and using the traditional use of the self exicuting rule.

You people are MAKING shit up about what is going on and then piling on to pretend I'm wrong and the house rules commitee is wrong and a constitutional scholar is wrong.


You have provided NOTHING to back your position but turds pulled from your asses.

It will not be allowed to stand in the US anymore.

No more intimidation by posters who lapp up lies to cling to FAILED political ideas.

You are not RIGHT because you all agree with lies.

You are wrong because your bullshit does not comport with the FACTS!

go try your school yard stupidity on idiots who will fall for it.

 

[California Girl]

IT IS FINE TO USE IT.


It is now established and unchallenged procedure to use it.

If it were constitutionally illega like you twits claim then Gingrich and Hastert would both be in prison.

If you doint like it then write your reps a nd tell them to outlaw it.

Until then its legal and has been used hundereds of times by republicans alone.

Shut up and FACE the repercussions of your failed ideas, you crashed the economy for the second time in one lifetime as well as LIED this country into war so that Haliburton could have a great bottom line.

You got Americans killed for your failed ideas and now this bill is going to safe much more than it will cost while SAVING LIVES!

You people are dispicable

And yet you are unable to explain why just a couple of years ago, Obama himself said it was unconstitutional, against the very principles on which this nation was founded and further, that any POTUS who used this process to pass healthcare had lost the authority to govern. He himself said that. Explain to me how anyone who said that a couple of years ago can now with any authority state that it is acceptable. The man is a joke and, frankly, so are you.

 

[hboats]

Let me see if I can clear this up one more time for truthmatters.

The Reconciliation Process is used on bills that have passed BOTH the House and Senate. That is what the Democrats were originally talking about doing, but since they currently don't have the votes they want to change the rules.a health care bill has passed both the house and senate fool and now they are using self executing rules (which has been used hundereds of times by Rs)

They now want to use the Slaughter Rule in addition to the Reconciliation Process. They want to take the bill that the Senate passed and just say that since the House passed a similar bill (which in its self isn't true, the bills are anything but similar) that the Senate bill is passed in the House without voting on it. THAT is the part that I'm saying hasn't been done before, and until you show me a specific example of it being done, you can stuff your "you lie" where the sun don't shine.You are wrong and teh constitutional scholar Mann disagrees with you right wing bullshit designed to cloud the issue

They are trying to combine the Reconciliation Process with the Slaughter Rule to deem a bill that the Senate passed to be passed by the House without a vote (Slaughter Rule), then reconcile it with the bill that passed in the House previously (Reconciliation).Read the house rules definitions I provided and realise you have bought a right wing load of shit in place of the truth

Now, if that doesn't make it clear to you, I give up. If you don't see it with that explanation you'll never see it.

Rick

I will trust the House rules definition and a constitutional scholars view over some internet right wing hacks thank you very much.

I give up. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Rick

 

[Truthmatters]

You give up because you have been using lies to claim I was wrong and the RECORD shows I am right.

The House rules site agrees with me along with constitutional scholars and the only ones who argee with you are partisan posters who gave nothing but their warped and politizied opinions.

You will leave now and continue to lie to yourself about the facts but you will no longer be lying to me and everyone else who now knows the facts you refuse to accept.

Bye loser and enjoy being pwned not by me but by the facts.

 

[American Horse]

Republicans didn't use "reconciliation" either, not once. Except on the 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut and their drug bill which was a "gift" to the drug companies. Little things really. Hardly worthy of notice.

Dean, I find no proof of either of those claims. Could you please provide a link to substantiate? I would expect something more than a move for "without objection" to a rule in the house, or the fact that the drug bill passed the Senate with "Unanimous Consent."

The House bill on Part D passed with Yays: 204 Rs and 16 Ds, and Nays: 25 Rs, 189 Ds.


Of course your claim it "was a gift to the Drug companies" was about the only claim the Ds made in that debate; the Rs argued it filled the need to do something about people on Medicare having full access to prescription drugs, and that it would induce competitive forces, which it does, and which was the real reason Ds hated it so much; but also because they were being beaten to doing it by Rs. This situation was typical of why Rs are always discouraged from passing healthcare legislation: THE Dems OWN IT AS AN ISSUE and anytime the Rs try to pass or do something it puts to the lie that they never do anything in that legislative area. Too often to get something out of committee or a useful debate on the floor of the house is counterproductive and they move on to what’s do-able. The public is beginning to see that process as a dysfunctional strategy for the sake of political points; Obama conference with the Rs back a while helped a lot.

And BTW, the only way the Part d Drug bill could be conceived to be a gift to the drug companies was because it made more prescriptions available to the elderly, and the drug companies earned legitimate profit from those sales.

 

[Oldandtired]

You give up because you have been using lies to claim I was wrong and the RECORD shows I am right.

The House rules site agrees with me along with constitutional scholars and the only ones who argee with you are partisan posters who gave nothing but their warped and politizied opinions.

You will leave now and continue to lie to yourself about the facts but you will no longer be lying to me and everyone else who now knows the facts you refuse to accept.

Bye loser and enjoy being pwned not by me but by the facts.

TM...
You need to back up and regroup.
Not all conservatives are liars.
You seem to believe we all are.

 

[MikeHoncho]

You give up because you have been using lies to claim I was wrong and the RECORD shows I am right.

The House rules site agrees with me along with constitutional scholars and the only ones who argee with you are partisan posters who gave nothing but their warped and politizied opinions.

You will leave now and continue to lie to yourself about the facts but you will no longer be lying to me and everyone else who now knows the facts you refuse to accept.

Bye loser and enjoy being pwned not by me but by the facts.

it doesnt show your right. it states in every definition/example you've given, that those rules are used on provisions and amendments to bills (the same bill) that was passed in the house and senate. as i stated before if the senate bill was passed in the house nobody would be complaining of the self-executing rule

the slaughter rule has never been used to pass a bill outright (not provisions to an alreadypassed bill).

as showed that you cant give one example where it has been used in the exact same manner in which the dems are implying that they will do.

 

[uscitizen]

Not all conservatives are liars. But they do have a lot of high profile pundits out there misleading the public.