The Slaughter Rule

[Si modo]

The Senate parlimentarian just laid down the law on this. Pretty funny:

Health end game hinges on House, Senate trust - Health care reform- msnbc.com

Some sanity for a change.

 

[boedicca]

Now that is what I call Hope! And it's a good Change.

 

[Terry]

Obama sees the writing on the wall now I think so now he moves to plan B and that is to make small little bills to backdoor to take over health care or insurance companies.

I think he may already be on at least plan F.

LOL Rep for you...He is a "F"

 

[Liability]

Great job not backing up your assertion.

By the way, nation-states have an entirely different group of laws that go along with them. I'll point out one to you that's common sense - A passport. The Constitution has within it the freedom to travel between the states (that's used a lot when you read cases that involve discrimination against citizens of one state by citizens of another state (which you can't do (for the most part)).

Show me a stamped passport from when you went to your neighbor state. That'll prove me wrong. Ha!

Silly effort at deflection gets you no points.

Up until the time of (after) the 9/11/2001 attacks, I was able to go back and forth between the USA and Canada without a passport or any other "travel document."

Passports are of course not required between the sovereign states because that is PRECISELY the point of having created a Federal Government with its won sovereign powers -- the States had, as I noted earlier -- CEDED portions of their individual sovereignties to the FEDERAL Government FOR A REASON. The trade barriers that were being put up between the various States of the confederation tended to undermine the ability of the States and the People to conduct enterprise. So, although a sovereign state DOES have the right to place trade barriers up at borders, the several states agreed to the authority of the FEDERAL government on that very issue. They CEDED that portion of their sovereignty to the dual sovereign.

Your effort at showing me up actually just back-fired. You only serve to reinforce the very things I have been trying to get you up to speed on!

 

[The Rabbi]

The Senate parlimentarian just laid down the law on this. Pretty funny:

Health end game hinges on House, Senate trust - Health care reform- msnbc.com

Does anyone in the HOuse really trust the White House, which has been totally incompetent in all this, to undo the crap in the Senate bill they needed for it to pass? That would mean trusting the Senate to undo what took months of work to accomplish, and trusting the Whtie House not to just give up and go with what they've got.
If the House Dems do this they are dumb as rocks.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, I think the House can do this.

Then everything is contigent on the ability of the Senate passing the bill--which is where the true hang up on the Democratic plan is.

The only differnece is that the House passed the bill before the Senate passed it, not after. How is that a real problem?

 

[Vanquish]

Great job not backing up your assertion.

By the way, nation-states have an entirely different group of laws that go along with them. I'll point out one to you that's common sense - A passport. The Constitution has within it the freedom to travel between the states (that's used a lot when you read cases that involve discrimination against citizens of one state by citizens of another state (which you can't do (for the most part)).

Show me a stamped passport from when you went to your neighbor state. That'll prove me wrong. Ha!

Silly effort at deflection gets you no points.

Up until the time of (after) the 9/11/2001 attacks, I was able to go back and forth between the USA and Canada without a passport or any other "travel document."

Passports are of course not required between the sovereign states because that is PRECISELY the point of having created a Federal Government with its won sovereign powers -- the States had, as I noted earlier -- CEDED portions of their individual sovereignties to the FEDERAL Government FOR A REASON. The trade barriers that were being put up between the various States of the confederation tended to undermine the ability of the States and the People to conduct enterprise. So, although a sovereign state DOES have the right to place trade barriers up at borders, the several states agreed to the authority of the FEDERAL government on that very issue. They CEDED that portion of their sovereignty to the dual sovereign.

Your effort at showing me up actually just back-fired. You only serve to reinforce the very things I have been trying to get you up to speed on!

Not really. You keep thinking that if you congratulate yourself at the end, your own words magically make you right. Unfortunately for you, you're wrong about that.

Canada is simply an exception to the rule. Furthermore, it was anecdotal evidence...not a cite to authority. Since this is your proposition, you're the one that has to cite to something. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove you.

You've not cited to the Constitution that I've seen. Refresh me? You've cited to no case law on the subject either. No treaties either. You haven't even referred to the doctrinal title of your little proposition. Surely you're not on this ledge alone. There's got to be a movement or a doctrine that you can back yourself up with.

In fact, under FEDERAL pre-emption doctrine, the FEDERAL government can stop treaties made by states with other countries. FEDERAL civil procedure trumps state civil procedure rules...including those dealing with the jurisdiction of aliens vs citizens.

If you want to keep making arguments with no citations or back up...go for it. But don't expect me to buy it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, I think the House can do this.

Then everything is contigent on the ability of the Senate passing the bill--which is where the true hang up on the Democratic plan is.

The only differnece is that the House passed the bill before the Senate passed it, not after. How is that a real problem?

No. You don't get it.
For a bill to be law both the House and Senate must pass the exact same bill. Word for word. The bright idea here is for the House to go back and pass the Senate bill, word for word.
But the Senate bill contains features that would never pass in the House. And I guess this is where reconciliation comes in.
Here is "Sheets" Byrd, who innovated the process, explaining why it shouldn't be used for health care reform:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBJCnY9phBM]YouTube - Senator Byrd Says Reconciliation Should Not be Used to Pass Controversial Legislation.mp4[/ame]

 

[Vanquish]

But he's not even listening to his own points!

He says that "the American people and the Senate need to know what's in the bill"...uhm if the House passes the same bill word by word as the Senate bill...it's not like the dems pulled some wool over the country's eyes...

If they both passed the same thing...it becomes law. trying to engineer a RE-vote that the Republicans can stop...that's gamesmanship...pure and simple.

 

[Annie]

While the machinations do not cease, it's interesting to watch how this train wreck is going to play out. More interesting will be the fallout down in a few months, pass or not. Seems the votes for the Senate bill just are not there, so first move was Slaughter bill, (make that 1st after a zillion others). Then came the pronouncement that couldn't be done, without the savings. Then came merging the college bill with this, voila. No vote required.

Loan bill could give Obama twin win - POLITICO.com Print View

I do wonder how that would play out with the majority of the people against it? Don't think any of us are going to like how this turns out. There will be clarification coming. Whether the Democrats like it or not, people getting hit, hard with tax increases and losing what they really do care about-teachers, police, etc., all the while this president and his minions are saying 'we cut taxes.' Yep, while the states are taxing all that moves, while falling into bankruptcy and cutting services. Smart moves abound.

Just found this:

Wrong Bill At The Wrong Time - Forbes.com

Uncommon Sense
Wrong Bill At The Wrong Time
Shikha Dalmia, 03.10.10, 12:01 AM ET

Even if Democrats extract the votes to put ObamaCare over the top, it will at best be a Pyrrhic victory for them. Regardless of the outcome, this monstrosity might cost the Democrats the Congress this November, ruin the party for a long time and prematurely render Barack Obama a lame duck president for the rest of his term.

So why didn't the Democrats pull back when they still had the chance? The reason is that both the Democratic Party and President Obama have mutually reinforcing blind spots that have rendered them incapable of seeing what's crystal clear to every other sentient being in the country: This was the wrong bill at the wrong time.

The only comic relief in the otherwise grim, yearlong ObamaCare saga has been the spectacle of progressive pundits scratching their heads to explain the bill's nose-diving popularity: Betsy McCaughey is a lying bitch whose chatter about death panels has spooked Americans; the bill is too tame for Americans who really want a public option; Democrats are just too damn nice to engage in the gutter partisan politics necessary to push their agenda through; Republicans are nay-saying obstructionists; and, my personal favorite, President Obama, arguably the most gifted orator alive, does not have the communication skills necessary to sell this bill (of goods).

In fact, the real reason why ObamaCare is so unpopular is that it is proposing a giant expansion of the entitlement state precisely when this state everywhere is coming apart: here and abroad; at the federal level and the state; in the public sector and the private. Suggesting a giant government takeover of a sixth of the economy can't be a popular selling point in a country whose DNA has a programmed hostility to Big Government...

 

[boedicca]

Excellent article - I also recommend reading the link about turning insurance companies into public utilities without due process. An excerpt:

To control against the risk of confiscatory rates, the Supreme Court also required the state regulator to allow each firm to obtain a market rate of return on its invested capital, taking into account the inherent riskiness of the venture. The orthodox legal approach was summed up in Justice William Rehnquist's unanimous 1989 decision in Duquesne Light v. Barasch. Duquesne Light allowed the state regulators a wide choice of methods so long as the "bottom line" secured the appropriate rate of return. There's no need to discuss the fine points here, because not one syllable in the Reid bill is dedicated to securing that constitutionally guaranteed minimum rate of return.

Duquesne Light carries extra weight here because health-insurance industries are far from natural monopolies, so that regulating their rates calls for an extra dollop of judicial scrutiny. At this point, the Reid bill is on a collision course with the Constitution. I take it for granted that, constitutionally, the federal government could not just require all private health insurers to liquidate tomorrow, without compensation.

What's done here is a close second. The inexorable squeeze between the constricted revenue sources allowable that insurers get under the Reid bill and the extensive and uncertain new legal obligations it imposes is likely to result in a massive cash-flow crunch that will drive the firms in the individual and small-group health insurance markets into speedy bankruptcy. The Supreme Court should apply the constitutional brakes to this foolhardy scheme if Congress doesn't come to its senses first.

Richard Epstein: Harry Reid Turns Insurance Into a Public Utility - WSJ.com

 

[The Rabbi]

But he's not even listening to his own points!

He says that "the American people and the Senate need to know what's in the bill"...uhm if the House passes the same bill word by word as the Senate bill...it's not like the dems pulled some wool over the country's eyes...

If they both passed the same thing...it becomes law. trying to engineer a RE-vote that the Republicans can stop...that's gamesmanship...pure and simple.

But that was then, this is now. Byrd is about 10 years older and in no shape to give speeches like that. But it reveals Democratic hypocrisy. Like anyone had any doubt.

Here's the best quotation I've seen on the whole thing so far:

Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO's Yuval Levin quips: "Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

from Heritage.org

 

[Liability]

But he's not even listening to his own points!

He says that "the American people and the Senate need to know what's in the bill"...uhm if the House passes the same bill word by word as the Senate bill...it's not like the dems pulled some wool over the country's eyes...

If they both passed the same thing...it becomes law. trying to engineer a RE-vote that the Republicans can stop...that's gamesmanship...pure and simple.

But that was then, this is now. Byrd is about 10 years older and in no shape to give speeches like that. But it reveals Democratic hypocrisy. Like anyone had any doubt.

Here's the best quotation I've seen on the whole thing so far:

Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO's Yuval Levin quips: "Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

from Heritage.org

BAM!

Excellent point and very well stated!

It bears a bit of repeating and a bit of emphasis.

"Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

-- from Heritage.org

And every single liberal who "supports" such bullshit should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, since there's not a person on the planet who honestly buys any claim that this tactic is appropriate.

 

[Vanquish]

But he's not even listening to his own points!

He says that "the American people and the Senate need to know what's in the bill"...uhm if the House passes the same bill word by word as the Senate bill...it's not like the dems pulled some wool over the country's eyes...

If they both passed the same thing...it becomes law. trying to engineer a RE-vote that the Republicans can stop...that's gamesmanship...pure and simple.

But that was then, this is now. Byrd is about 10 years older and in no shape to give speeches like that. But it reveals Democratic hypocrisy. Like anyone had any doubt.

Here's the best quotation I've seen on the whole thing so far:

Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO's Yuval Levin quips: "Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

from Heritage.org

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

"Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

-- from Heritage.org

And every single liberal who "supports" such bullshit should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, since there's not a person on the planet who honestly buys any claim that this tactic is appropriate.

Liability, since this is some sort of New Rules for the Congress, will the Supreme Court even look at it as an unconstitutional action on the part of the Legislature because of the Separation of Powers we have? If they don't, it might be the final straw that brings about another civil war.

 

[Liability]

"Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

-- from Heritage.org

And every single liberal who "supports" such bullshit should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, since there's not a person on the planet who honestly buys any claim that this tactic is appropriate.

Liability, since this is some sort of New Rules for the Congress, will the Supreme Court even look at it as an unconstitutional action on the part of the Legislature because of the Separation of Powers we have? If they don't, it might be the final straw that brings about another civil war.

My best guess is that the SCOTUS would not hide behind the doctrine of "political question" to avoid dealing with this one. What the Congress is threatening to do is to blatantly violate the explicit provisions of Article I, Section 7. Whatever they pretend to "pass" in that fashion will not be "A" singular "Bill," but two different bills. And at least one of those bills would NEVER have received the ayes and Nays of Congress. Mark Levin and one of his Constitutional lawyer friends discussed these notions a couple of nights ago. I think Mark Levin is absolutely correct. Such a "bill" would be no law at all.

And since my guess is that the SCOTUS WOULD take the case, the outcome is pretty apparent.

It will not stand. I also doubt that even these outrageous assclowns infesting our government these days have the temerity to try something this outrageous.

 

[The Rabbi]

But he's not even listening to his own points!

He says that "the American people and the Senate need to know what's in the bill"...uhm if the House passes the same bill word by word as the Senate bill...it's not like the dems pulled some wool over the country's eyes...

If they both passed the same thing...it becomes law. trying to engineer a RE-vote that the Republicans can stop...that's gamesmanship...pure and simple.

But that was then, this is now. Byrd is about 10 years older and in no shape to give speeches like that. But it reveals Democratic hypocrisy. Like anyone had any doubt.

Here's the best quotation I've seen on the whole thing so far:

Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO's Yuval Levin quips: "Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

from Heritage.org

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

 

[Ame®icano]

If the House tries to pull the Slaughter Maneuver, I expect this to end up in the SCOTUS - and that an injunction will be put in place.

Article I, Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. 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, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But 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 any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Slaughter rule is unconstitutional, period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” to Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without a Vote

....

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.

....

Republican Leader John Boehner | Democrats Prepare ?Slaughter Solution? to Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without a Vote

Screw our Democratic system. Screw Democracy!

Well, I would expect you to believe anything at all that ol' Boner states.

 

[Old Rocks]

But that was then, this is now. Byrd is about 10 years older and in no shape to give speeches like that. But it reveals Democratic hypocrisy. Like anyone had any doubt.

Here's the best quotation I've seen on the whole thing so far:
from Heritage.org

WTH? "That was then this is now" What the heck does that even mean in this context?

So you fall back on "oh he's just old"...then say it proves hypocrisy? Maybe you need to dumb it down for me. I'm not getting anything from that group of letters other than you seeing what you want to see...and defending yourself with an old man's senility.

The audio from that clip was played on a local radio show in the afternoon as some sort of "gotcha" about the REAL purpose of reconciliation. OF COURSE Byrd's going to spin things his way. I'll give you that he would be the expert on the intent of the rule, but you gotta admit that he has the ability to take advantage of that position too. You author a rule, it gets passed, make sure you have the historians write down notes on the legislative intent...then you put it out there. That's really the best you can do.

Let me spell it out for you.
The clip was like 15 years ago, maybe less. Byrd was explaining why reconciliation should not be used to pass the Clinton Health Care bill, despite then-president Clinton's requests to do so.
Fast forward to today when Democrats are poised to do just that. Why hasn't Byrd spoken out against it like he did 15years ago? Because he can barely sit straight, being over 90 years old.
But it isn't just Byrd. There are scores of clips on Yuotube and elsewhere of Dems decrying GOP use of reconciliation to approve judicial nominees. Now those same idiots think it's fine to use the exact same process to re-order 1/6th of our economy in the biggest social engineering legislation of this century.
That is hypocrisy.

Hey silly ass, the Repukes used reconciliation 14 times recently. The Dems, only 8 times. So we have six free ones to catch up with.

Hmmm....... Health Care, Cap and Trade, Banking regulations, Tax hikes on the very wealthy, More Federal support for scientific research, more Federal support for higher education. Just a few suggestions