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

[Truthmatters]

They are facts not talking points.

I know you think they are the same thing though hack

 

[Truthmatters]

Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

A ROLL CALL article from 2006 folks, its from the Rs themselves

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Face it, It's the end of the road for your hero Obama and his group of windy city gangsters. ~BH

 

[boedicca]

They are facts not talking points.

I know you think they are the same thing though hack

And with this post, you concede defeat.

Thanks!

 

[Truthmatters]

More lies boo?

look you have claimed this one is different than anything the Rs have done , please prove it with demonstratable facts not just your ass grabbings





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.). 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.

 

[MikeHoncho]

Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

A ROLL CALL article from 2006 folks, its from the Rs themselves

you do understand that the HOUSE has not passed the Senate bill, which is why all the examples you are giving mean nothing. for some reason you seem to be missing that point.

 

[boedicca]

TM:

You have provided absolute no examples of self-executing amendments being applied to bills which have not already passed the House.

Really. Spare yourself further embarrassment and actually read what you quote before you post it. Your selections are not helping your cause.

 

[Truthmatters]

You made the claim now you do your own fucking footwork.

You are the one claiming there is a differance.

 

[boedicca]

I have. Repeatedly. You have not provided any examples of the House approving self-executing amendments based on Senate amendments to bills that had not already been approved by the House.

 

[Truthmatters]

Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

A ROLL CALL article from 2006 folks, its from the Rs themselves

you do understand that the HOUSE has not passed the Senate bill, which is why all the examples you are giving mean nothing. for some reason you seem to be missing that point.

And when the house votes on this issue they are voting on the bill at the same time.

If they vote to defeat it you win right?

If they vote to approve it they vote to approve it right.

EVERYONE voting in the house knows this.

 

[boedicca]

And when the house votes on this issue they are voting on the bill at the same time.

If they vote to defeat it you win right?

If they vote to approve it they vote to approve it right.

EVERYONE voting in the house knows this.

No They Are Not.

This entire maneuver it to avoid an up or down vote on the Senate Bill by the House.

 

[Truthmatters]

How can that be when everyone knows a yes vote passes the bill too?

 

[boedicca]

Because it's unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 7 specifies the order of the House passing a bill, then it goes to the Senate. If no amendments are proposed, it then goes to the President for signing.

In this case, the bill under consideration is the Senate Version. The house cannot amend something that it hasn't already passed.

 

[MikeHoncho]

Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

A ROLL CALL article from 2006 folks, its from the Rs themselves

you do understand that the HOUSE has not passed the Senate bill, which is why all the examples you are giving mean nothing. for some reason you seem to be missing that point.

And when the house votes on this issue they are voting on the bill at the same time.

If they vote to defeat it you win right?

If they vote to approve it they vote to approve it right.

EVERYONE voting in the house knows this.

that literally makes no sense. as stated before, for them to even do this the senate bill must be passed in the house. that means by a vote, which means they have to get 216 in favor, it does not mean they can just say ok we passed it and move on which is what you suggest.
as stated before there is no example of what the dems are trying to do, ever. never has a bill been signed into law WITHOUT first being past by both the house and senate.

 

[MikeHoncho]

Because it's unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 7 specifies the order of the House passing a bill, then it goes to the Senate. If no amendments are proposed, it then goes to the President for signing.

In this case, the bill under consideration is the Senate Version. The house cannot amend something that it hasn't already passed.

there really is no point, this guy doesnt get it.

 

[Truthmatters]

No you people dont get it.

EVERY person voting on this issue KNOWS it means the healthcare bill will go straight to the presidents desk for signing.

That means they know its voting for the bills approval.

You can pretend that is not the case but it is.

This was fine by you when Rs did it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Because it's unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 7 specifies the order of the House passing a bill, then it goes to the Senate. If no amendments are proposed, it then goes to the President for signing.

In this case, the bill under consideration is the Senate Version. The house cannot amend something that it hasn't already passed.

hence our derisive comments toward you on this truthmatters.

 

[boedicca]

No you people dont get it.

EVERY person voting on this issue KNOWS it means the healthcare bill will go straight to the presidents desk for signing.

That means they know its voting for the bills approval.

You can pretend that is not the case but it is.

This was fine by you when Rs did it.

That's really groovy except for the little detail that it doesn't work that way in The Constitution. The GOP never did anything remotely like this. You yourself have not been able to cite even one example.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

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

Newt got kicked out in 97 for violating the rules

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Congress Project : Publications : Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call

A ROLL CALL article from 2006 folks, its from the Rs themselves

you do understand that the HOUSE has not passed the Senate bill, which is why all the examples you are giving mean nothing. for some reason you seem to be missing that point.

Again truth we keep trying to tell you.....good post magic man