Democrats have used self-executing rule over a hundred times

[hboats]

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.

Actually, I give up because I've explained to you what the difference is between what you are claiming and what is actually going on many times, but you just can't get it through your head.

The House hasn't passed the Senate bill. They are trying to make it so that the House doesn't even vote on the Senate bill. They are trying to deem it passed in the House without a vote. Do you understand that? They know they don't have the numbers in the House to get the Senate bill passed, so they are trying to bypass a vote using the Slaughter Rule. This has NEVER been done before. The process that has been used (yes, by both Republicans and Democrats) is to VOTE to pass the bill in both the Senate and the House and then reconcile it after the vote. They want to bypass the House vote and just deem it passed. If you can't see that there is a HUGE difference between this and what has been done in the past even after it's been explained to you numerous times then I give up.

Rick

 

[LibocalypseNow]

So uh,Socialists,didn't you guys whine incessantly over that stuff? Didn't you guys vehemently oppose that stuff? Just like the Patriot Act and Raising the Debt Limit,the Democrats have been proven to be shallow dishonest hypocrites on every issue. This is just another example of their astounding hypocrisy. They couldn't get enough face-time on TV whining about this stuff when the other guys had power. Seriously,I wouldn't trust a Democrat as far as i could throw em. Make 2010 count people.

 

[hboats]

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

And Democrats don't?

Here are just a few recent reminders before you answer:

The Republicans don't have a health care reform bill.

The Republicans blocked this bill.

I'll just stop there, I think I've made my point.

Rick

 

[Truthmatters]

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


Keep lying assholes you have nothing in face of the facts

 

[hboats]

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


Keep lying assholes you have nothing in face of the facts

Please point out ANY lie in post #81. I'll be waiting.

Rick

 

[uscitizen]

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

And Democrats don't?

Here are just a few recent reminders before you answer:

The Republicans don't have a health care reform bill.

The Republicans blocked this bill.

I'll just stop there, I think I've made my point.

Rick

You made no point in response to the specifics of my post.
You just asked a question.

 

[Oldandtired]

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


Keep lying assholes you have nothing in face of the facts

Please point out ANY lie in post #81. I'll be waiting.

Rick

hBoats...I simply told her that infusion of money to create infrastructure jobs will decrease unemployment...

And she called me a liar.

Well...she added a couple of adjectives before the word liar....

You are a liar if you dont agree with her....that is not being a liar TM...that is disagreeing.

 

[hboats]

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

And Democrats don't?

Here are just a few recent reminders before you answer:

The Republicans don't have a health care reform bill.

The Republicans blocked this bill.

I'll just stop there, I think I've made my point.

Rick

You made no point in response to the specifics of my post.
You just asked a question.

Which you didn't answer, I noticed.

Rick

 

[Oldandtired]

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

And Democrats don't?

Here are just a few recent reminders before you answer:

The Republicans don't have a health care reform bill.

The Republicans blocked this bill.

I'll just stop there, I think I've made my point.

Rick

You made no point in response to the specifics of my post.
You just asked a question.

I love the way you have fun on here USC....really....not sarcastic....you really make this very entertaining for yourself.....I commmend you for it.

 

[GWV5903]

Nah, I'm screwing with you USMB, it was the Republicans.

The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

On the American Enterprise Institute blog, for instance, congressional expert Norm Ornstein writes:

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."

That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration.

He also posted that essay on the Web site of the Woodrow Wilson Center, where he runs the Congress Project:

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). [Naturally, Gingrich can now be seen everywhere on cable television complaining about such mischief.] There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

Wolfensberger was inspired by a 2006 episode when the Republican majority -- in order to secure their own loophole-ridden, watered-down version of ethics and lobbying reform -- used not just one but three self-executing rules on a single bill.

So uh, conservatives, where has your outrage been for the last, oh I dunno, fifteen years?

Hell let them use it, the Democrats will be decimated in November if they do, if the bill fails as it should, you can tell Obama it is time to punt, his Presidency will be over......

 

[MikeHoncho]

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


Keep lying assholes you have nothing in face of the facts

lol you cant even understand the rules that you post. lets make this simple for you

a bill gets to the president to be signed in to law after:

passes in the house
> Must be the same bill
passes in the senate

all the rules your referring to happen after this process. the self executing rule is to provisions that if you VOTE on the bill you'll agree too, hence the 2 for one...it says it right in the example given here: "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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It has been used on routine things that were non-controversial, like a federal ban on smoking in airplanes... and I think most people don't have a problem with this.

This is vastly diferent... most Americans oppose these "reforms" and as such this is highly controversial. This is nothing more than a way to bypass the will of the people on the most ground-breaking legislation in a generation, it won't work, and if they do this, they will "deem" themselves irrelevant for generations to come. This is not the way to do things.

 

[uscitizen]

And Democrats don't?

Here are just a few recent reminders before you answer:

The Republicans don't have a health care reform bill.

The Republicans blocked this bill.

I'll just stop there, I think I've made my point.

Rick

You made no point in response to the specifics of my post.
You just asked a question.

Which you didn't answer, I noticed.

Rick

the dems have few high level pundits like the right does.
Aren't you all always bragging on Fox Pundit and Rush ratings?

 

[Truthmatters]

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


Keep lying assholes you have nothing in face of the facts

lol you cant even understand the rules that you post. lets make this simple for you

a bill gets to the president to be signed in to law after:

passes in the house
> Must be the same bill
passes in the senate

all the rules your referring to happen after this process. the self executing rule is to provisions that if you VOTE on the bill you'll agree too, hence the 2 for one...it says it right in the example given here: "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.

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


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



Now read this , now think about the other facts. The house passed a healthcare bill and sent it to the senate. Then they amended it and passed it and sent it back to the house. Now is when the bill would be reconciled. They have taken the senate bill and will now use self executive rule to pass it. There will be a vote and its a procedure that has been used hundereds of times in the past.

Trying to pretend this one has some vast differance over other uses is simply BULLSHIT pulled right out of you peoples asses.

 

[MikeHoncho]

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


Keep lying assholes you have nothing in face of the facts

lol you cant even understand the rules that you post. lets make this simple for you

a bill gets to the president to be signed in to law after:

passes in the house
> Must be the same bill
passes in the senate

all the rules your referring to happen after this process. the self executing rule is to provisions that if you VOTE on the bill you'll agree too, hence the 2 for one...it says it right in the example given here: "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.

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

exactly your link supports what i just said.

which is why you cant provide and example of any party using that method on legislation that wasnt passed in the house and senate....the same bill. thanks for trying.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are full of shit.

The house passes a bill and the senate votes or amends it and votes on it.

When they amend it and then vote on it it goes back to the house to be reconciled.

Now read the house rules definition of self executive.

This fits exactly what the dems are doing and you are full of shit.


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

 

[hboats]

You made no point in response to the specifics of my post.
You just asked a question.

Which you didn't answer, I noticed.

Rick

the dems have few high level pundits like the right does.
Aren't you all always bragging on Fox Pundit and Rush ratings?

Not once have I said anything here about Fox or Rush ratings. Others, maybe, but not me.

Rick

 

[MikeHoncho]

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

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


if everything listed from that link, none of says where it passes the bill itself, only that once the bill is passed the ammendments and rule provisions are also agreed upon in the bill.

try reading it before you post it in your favor.

 

[hboats]

Now read this , now think about the other facts. The house passed a healthcare bill and sent it to the senate. Then they amended it and passed it and sent it back to the house. Now is when the bill would be reconciled. They have taken the senate bill and will now use self executive rule to pass it. There will be a vote and its a procedure that has been used hundereds of times in the past.

Trying to pretend this one has some vast differance over other uses is simply BULLSHIT pulled right out of you peoples asses.

This is where you go wrong EVERY time. The House and Senate bills are not the same bill. The House passed a separate bill than the one passed in the Senate. If what you're claiming was what was going on here, the House wouldn't have to vote on the Senate bill, they'd just have to vote on any amendments the Senate made to the House bill. That's not what is happening here. The House voted on a bill, let's call it Bill A. The Senate then voted on a DIFFERENT bill, let's call it Bill B. Neither Bill A or Bill B has been voted on by both branches.

Under your example, the House votes on a bill, let's call it Bill C. Then the Senate makes amendments to Bill C and votes to pass it. Then Bill C goes back to the House for Reconciliation.

These are two totally DIFFERENT things. You're right, the example using Bill C is common and has been done numerous times. What is going on currently with Bill A and Bill B has NEVER been done before.

Rick

 

[Truthmatters]

The bill has passed the house and then was amended in the senate and now the house is tasked with reconciling the two bills.

This house rules definition clearly states that IS the traditional use of the Self Executive rule.

The house is not only perfectly within the house rules committees definition on this one but they are even in the TRADITIONAL definition according to the house rules committee.

The right is PRETENDING that they are not to make political hey/.

Its called lying in comman vernacular.