IF (and to whatever extent) a so-called self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified. "But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs. By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format. http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion. _____________________ * It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point: "* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by  those who would support the use of the deemed approved approach to passing legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a deemed approved procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure." Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.