The Slaughter Rule

[eagleseven]

Then why are states "Declaring Sovereignity"?

Wouldn't that be like me standing up and yelling "I AM A MAN!"

It doesn't really change much and it is a waste of my time.

If Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are convinced you are a woman, it may be very useful.

 

[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.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5099B175-18FE-70B2-A86A56B80E95035A

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

I tend to think this will blow up in their faces. Never mind there are literally hours of video of Democrats decrying this very tactic when they were in the minority--the very same ones now pushing for it. The Dems will lose power one day and the GOP will gain power.
Of course when they try to do the same thing they will be accused of staging a coup d'etat etc etc.
Democrats are the biggest ******* hypocrites to walk the planet. And of course hte party of **** You.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's called PROGRESS. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

ROFL...

Well sure, illicit means to 'pass' legislation... is "PROGRESS"...

Here's the problem ya have sis... Using such means only undermines the legal validity of the law... Claiming something 'passed' and expecting that the Signature of the Executive makes it legal; is ABSURD.

But it IS a BEAUTIFUL example demonstrating that Left-think is an unsound species of reasoning.

 

[Terry]

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.

I wonder if Obama's attacks on the SCOTUS and the rumor put out that Justice Roberts was retiring is a set up for when this bill reaches the SCOTUS


Makes me wonder.

 

[Liability]

Some of youze lib types don't seem to grasp the fundamental concept that the 50 States in the Union are already sovereign states.

The 13 original American colonies became sovereign States (in the sense of independent nations) at the time of the Declaration to the end of the Revolutionary War. They CHOSE to create a confederation for their own mutual protection and support. But it had problems. The formation of our Constitutional Republic was designed largely to correct those problems.

Nevertheless, in the process of forging the Union, it was never assumed that ceding a limited and pre-defined portion of each State's respective sovereign authority to a centralized Federal Government amounted to the termination of their individual sovereignties.

Then why are states "Declaring Sovereignity"?

Wouldn't that be like me standing up and yelling "I AM A MAN!"

It doesn't really change much and it is a waste of my time.

Two responses.

It serves as a not necessarily subtle ( and perhaps even an ominous) reminder to the Federal Government, which is a creature OF the STATES' creation, that the States are not mere appendages to the Federal Government. The Federal Government tends to act as though the States ARE mere appendages. They obviously do need the reminder.

And, I bet your knowledge of history is pretty good, Xo. So let's use an historical example of the not too distant past. When the equal rights movement was under way and the heroes of the movement were men like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, there were MANY slogans used -- often on placards and posters -- to re-state the truth. ONE of those signs carried by black men in their peaceful marches and protests was the reminder to the oppressive governments: "I AM A MAN!"

You declaring that same thing, today, might carry no particular weight beyond just stating the obvious and rather unimportant biological fact. The black protesters of the late 1950s and the early 1960s using that very same phrase DID have significant meaning. Would I be mistaken in guessing that you agree?

 

[Vanquish]

The 50 states aren't independent nation states. Sorry to tell you that. Only the most twisted interpretation of the Constitution takes you there. There's not a law school in the country that teaches that I can tell you.

 

[Liability]

The 50 states aren't independent nation states. Sorry to tell you that. Only the most twisted interpretation of the Constitution takes you there. There's not a law school in the country that teaches that I can tell you.

You are beyond ridiculous.

Did you know, for example, that except in the case where it would contradict, violate or interfere with a treaty made between a foreign nation and the United States, individual States can (and do) enter into treaties with foreign nations?

The 50 States are indeed each sovereign, as I correctly stated, except insofar as each State voluntarily ceded a portion of its sovereignty to the United States.

And any law school (or ANY school at all) that teaches anything else is committing educational malpractice.

Look up the very MEANING of Federalism and try to grasp the meaning of that term within the context of our Federal Constitutional Republic. Study hard. There may be a test later.

And this will just blow your mind, Van: under our Constitution, we formally declare another fact about "sovereignty" in this Republic. We are all sovereigns, we the People are. We are not "subjects" of "the crown." We are not "subjects" at all. WE are each sovereigns within the context of an established power-sharing relationship.

You might need a bit of fine-tuning in this educational process, Van, and since I like this topic, I will oblige you. But in another post. I know. You can hardly wait!

 

[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!

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may not generally prosecute a defendant in a second proceeding when that defendant has been previously convicted, or acquitted, of the same crime. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). The "dual sovereignty doctrine," however, allows two independent sovereign entities to prosecute an offender separately for a single offense. See Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 90 (1985). The rationale behind the dual sovereignty doctrine is this: if, in the course of a single crime, an individual breaks the laws of two distinct sovereigns, the person has offended both and has committed two distinct offenses for which each sovereign has an independent right to prosecute him. See United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922).
6

At the heart of the doctrine is the degree of separation between the two presumptive sovereigns. If the first sovereign's power emanates from a source independent of that which gives rise to the second sovereign's power, then the doctrine applies and the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when both sovereigns prosecute. If, on the other hand, the second sovereign's power is merely derivative of the first's, then one or the other may prosecute but not both.
7

The status of federal prosecutions vis-a-vis state and foreign prosecutions is well settled. See Moore v. Illinois, 55 U.S. 13, 14 (1852) (sequential prosecution for same offense by state and federal governments not barred by double jeopardy); United States v. Fontanez, 869 F.2d 180, 181-83 (2nd Cir. 1989) (federal prosecution not barred by prior foreign prosecution). * * * *

United States of America v. Michael L Enas, 204 F.3d 915 (9th Cir., 2000).(Emphasis supplied by me.)

Can you begin to see now that if New York (for example) was not also sovereign, it couldn't prosecute a defendant for behavior constituting a NY State crime if the Federal government had also prosecuted that defendant for the same behavior (constituting a Federal crime).

 

[boedicca]

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.

An important point: The taxes kick in immediately, with benefits deferred for at least 4 years (I suspect this will be pushed out even further during reconciliation to cover all of the additional bribes to get votes). How is the public going to like paying far more for nothing for years?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

An important point: The taxes kick in immediately, with benefits deferred for at least 4 years (I suspect this will be pushed out even further during reconciliation to cover all of the additional bribes to get votes). How is the public going to like paying far more for nothing for years?

And just like the Social Security "Lock Box", the money won't be there when the program kicks in. It will have to be funded by payroll taxes on the fly.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

An important point: The taxes kick in immediately, with benefits deferred for at least 4 years (I suspect this will be pushed out even further during reconciliation to cover all of the additional bribes to get votes). How is the public going to like paying far more for nothing for years?

Only problem is the Democrat base won't be paying.

 

[saveliberty]

I like the left's characterization using Slaughter's name is somehow wrong. If we were going to sensationalize it we could call it the Slaughter House rule.

Slaughter House rule: What does down the drain stays down the drain. Leave the healthcare bill in the drain.

 

[Si modo]

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.

An important point: The taxes kick in immediately, with benefits deferred for at least 4 years (I suspect this will be pushed out even further during reconciliation to cover all of the additional bribes to get votes). How is the public going to like paying far more for nothing for years?

Only problem is the Democrat base won't be paying.

There are 22 right to work states. I would bet that all of them will sue over this. Almost half the country will reject this. Nothing universal about it.

 

[Gatekeeper]

When they pull this CRAP, we'll have a Dictatorship. They,and Obama are truly %$%#@#$%'s.
Why not DEEM all laws null and void and have 'ObamaRule'
IF they get away with this, they will try it on everything THEY want.

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.

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

 

[Si modo]

Yup.

 

[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.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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