House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Both these bills have passed their bodies guys so saying they were never voted on is yet another LIE!

Stop being willfully ignorant. I know, from other posts, you know better than this.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

if they had the votes, they would have voted.

if they had the votes, obama wouldn't be doing an interview on *fox*.

if they had the votes, they wouldn't be trying to minimize the significance of the idea of using parliamentary gymnastics to sleaze the bill through.

i don't think everybody can be bought off with a plane ride and a book of matches with the presidential seal on them like that assclown kucinich.

They flipped Kucinich and they're looking confident. It's only Wednesday.

I still don't think that the house can get enough congresspeople to support this bill to have it pass the constitutional way, with a vote.

Now if they violate the constitution and "deem" it passed they can do it...however in the process they are effectively destroying our constitutional republic and turning us into something other than what we were founded as.

 

[Xenophon]

Still think nan has the votes?

More attempts to jam this unpopular bill down our wallets:

House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

Republicans used it. Why not Democrats?

Name the time 'republicans' used it to pass a bill that will cost trillions and is unpopular with more then half the country.

What a stupid thing to say, like a five year old, 'Republicans used it, why can't democrats?'

BECAUSE ITS WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I shouldn't have to even say it, it should be obvious too you.

 

[Truthmatters]

In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Still think nan has the votes?

More attempts to jam this unpopular bill down our wallets:

House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

Republicans used it. Why not Democrats?

Name the time 'republicans' used it to pass a bill that will cost trillions and is unpopular with more then half the country.

What a stupid thing to say, like a five year old, 'Republicans used it, why can't democrats?'

BECAUSE ITS WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I shouldn't have to even say it, it should be obvious too you.

now you have 2 challengers RDEAN. Are you gonna bring it or are you going to hide ?

 

[Truthmatters]

Pensito Review


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.). 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.

 

[del]

In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language.

even you're not this stupid

 

[Truthmatters]

Its exactly what is being done you fool, prove its not.

You nut nuzzeler

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pensito Review


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.). 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.

Let me get this right. You are trying to say that since the republicans broke the rules its ok if the democrats do too?

Sorry that doesn't fly with this american. It was wrong with repubs and is wrong now.

Like RDean your pointing to bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Its exactly what is being done you fool, prove its not.

You nut nuzzeler

I'll let pelosi do it for him

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtYBEDzwxtk]YouTube - Nancy Pelosi Agrees w/ Parliamentarian on Reconciliation[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

So you are now saying its illegal and Newt should go to prison????

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So you are now saying its illegal and Newt should go to prison????

im saying its unconstitional and Newt should have lost his seat.....oh wait .

 

[boedicca]

In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language.

No they aren't.

There is no up or down vote on the Senate Bill. The past use of self-executing rules have involved approving the Senate's amendments to bills that have already been approved by the House.

There is no precedent for what the House is currently contemplating.

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove it

 

[Truthmatters]

The Arena: - Thomas E. Mann Bio


Will House Dems use parliamentary tricks to pass health care?
The speaker is considering the use of a self-executing rule to create for her Democratic members an opportunity to indicate that their support of the Senate-passed bill is coupled with the set of amendments to it that will be considered in a separate package under the reconciliation bill. Such a rule was used 36 times by the House Republican leadership in 2005-6 and 49 times by the Democratic leadership in 2007-8.

 

[boedicca]

Prove it

You are the one claiming that the precedent exists. The burden of proof is on you. But as you do not seem competent for the task at hand, I'll offer a bit of help.

You can read the house rules yourself:

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 House-Senate relations. They have also been used in recent years to enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions. Examples from the Congressional Record will illustrate:

! On August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that
automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for
consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline
flights of two hours or less duration.

! On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that
incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing
the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute
made in order as original text.

! H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated
into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for
the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its
constitutionality.

! A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic
adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order
as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with
bipartisan support.

! On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by
H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the
intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their
employees an early-out retirement program.

! On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that
a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original
bill for purposes of amendment.

There are 6 instances quoted as being exceptional uses. Please explain how and why one or all are precedents for the ObamaCare scenario (which involves amending a bill that has not been approved by the House - which is not the case with the 6 examples).

 

[Truthmatters]

I proved precident , you just ignored the facts given to you.

Newt used it repetedly, do you want him in jail?

 

[boedicca]

You did not provide a precedent.

There is a traditional use for self-executing amendments to handle Senate Amendments to Bills that have ALREADY BEEN PASSED BY THE HOUSE.

The proposed amendments now under consideration are for a bill that has not been previously approved by the House. You have provided absolutely no precedent.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000631-503544.html




"But it's worth noting that this "Washington power grab" was used 36 times by House Republicans in 2005 and 2006, when they last controlled Congress, according to the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann. "

 

[boedicca]

Posting political talking points without any analysis of the fact pattern is not very convincing.

Just sayin'.