bodhi
2010-03-15 04:13:15 UTC
"In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House
"deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the
House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the
rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule,
not for the bill itself."
Gee Wally, they never taught me that's how a Bill gets passed on
School House Rock ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
I wonder why .... could it possibly be .... er .....
unconstitutional????
RED ALERT: We Are Now Living Under Martial Law -- House Democrats
Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/03/red-alert-we-are-now-living-under.html
The Washington Examiner reports that House Democrats appear poised to
adopt a rule that would pass the Senate health care bill without
actually voting on it.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care
overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was
originally reported by the National Journal's Congress Daily. Mark
Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate
refutation of the people's will.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House
"deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the
House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the
rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule,
not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate
bill "passed" once the House approves a corrections bill that would
make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the
health care bill while allowing it to become law!
Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, "They're going to present
a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House
already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn't?"
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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...
According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and
attention to this clause in the Constitution.
Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the
heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is
Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular
the Framers were... They have to pass a Bill to present it to the
President...
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no
Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual
statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional
leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open
violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution
and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create
the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be
100 times worse than Watergate.
...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law...
the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a
grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress
[that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.
This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we
stress the Constitution's words have meaning and historical context
and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which
leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your
beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even
care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful
chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules
Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll
ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is
discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they
pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without
actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of
others -- to the courthouse to stop this.
I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution
than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!
...It's not only absurd on its face -- that these power-hungry
ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim
that the House voted on something it never voted on... that's not only
absurd on its face, it's blatantly unconstitutional!
Please stay tuned for updates to this post as we will provide
additional insight from Levin and other Constitutional experts.
Update 11-March-2010 21:03 ET:
Levin: I wanted to bring additional firepower on this subject, my
buddy Arthur Fergenson, who is a Constitutional expert and who has
argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, including Buckley vs.
Valeo...
What do you make of this unbelievable -- that they're even talking
about, this chairman of the Rules Committee -- acting as if members of
the House voted on something when they didn't actually vote on it?
Fergenson: It's preposterous. It's ludicrous. But it's also dangerous.
It's dangerous because, first, ...because [the U.S. Constitution's]
Article I Section VII says every bill -- and it capitalized "bill"
-- ...it is common sense that the bill is the same item, it can't be
multiple bills, it can't be mashups of bills. And, in fact, in 1986,
Gene Gressman, no conservative, and one of the experts -- the expert
-- on Supreme Court practice... was writing an article that was
dealing with a less problematic attempt to get around this section of
the Constitution... [Ed: the line-item veto] and he wrote, "By long
usage and plain meaning, 'Bill' means any singular and entire piece of
legislation in the form it was approved by the two houses."
...the bills have to be revoted until they are identical. Both
chambers have to vote on the bill.
If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House and there
were to be a bill presented to the President for his signature, that
was a bill that had not been voted on -- identically by the two Houses
of Congress -- that bill would be a nullity. It is not law. That is
chaos.
I cannot recall any circumstance in which that has happened.
...What we have here is a measure, that if Obama signed it, would
immediately affect taxation, it would change rules of practice in the
insurance industry, it would regulate 17% of the nation's economy, and
it would be done without any legal basis whatsoever!
Update 11-March-2010 21:12 ET:
Fergenson: It's like, the closest I can think of is martial law! The
President would have no authority -- there would be no law! It's not
like it would be constitutional or not. There would be. No. Law.
Levin: What do you make of people who sit around and even think of
things like this? To me, they are absolutely unfit to even be in high
office!
Fergenson: You're right, Mark. And I would go back to what caused
Gressman to write this... he was asked for his comments by the
Senate... because the Senate was trying to do the equivalent of a line-
item veto. And, in 1986, you were in the Justice Department under
Attorney General Meese... there was a proposal... to take a bill and
divide it into little pieces and.. then the President would sign each
one or veto each one. That was unconstitutional. A Senate Rules
Committee reported it unfavorably.
Update 11-March-2010 21:36 ET:
Levin: You know what's interesting about this... Attorney General Ed
Meese considered it unconstitutional even though President Reagan had
wanted a line-item veto. And President Reagan agreed that it was
unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution...
...Speaking for myself, I would tell the people who listen to this
program that you are under absolutely no obligation to comply with it
[this health care bill] because it is not, in fact, law. Do you agree
with me?
Fergenson: I agree with you. I believe it would be tested by the
Supreme Court. I believe that, under these circumstances, chaos would
reign. There is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. The
courts are empowered to determine whether it's unconstitutional...
it's not a law.
Under this scenario, the various arms of the federal government will
be acting under a law that does not exist.
-----------------------
namaste;
bodhi
"deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the
House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the
rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule,
not for the bill itself."
Gee Wally, they never taught me that's how a Bill gets passed on
School House Rock ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
I wonder why .... could it possibly be .... er .....
unconstitutional????
RED ALERT: We Are Now Living Under Martial Law -- House Democrats
Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/03/red-alert-we-are-now-living-under.html
The Washington Examiner reports that House Democrats appear poised to
adopt a rule that would pass the Senate health care bill without
actually voting on it.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care
overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was
originally reported by the National Journal's Congress Daily. Mark
Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate
refutation of the people's will.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House
"deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the
House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the
rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule,
not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate
bill "passed" once the House approves a corrections bill that would
make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the
health care bill while allowing it to become law!
Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, "They're going to present
a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House
already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn't?"
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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...
According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and
attention to this clause in the Constitution.
Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the
heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is
Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular
the Framers were... They have to pass a Bill to present it to the
President...
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no
Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual
statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional
leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open
violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution
and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create
the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be
100 times worse than Watergate.
...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law...
the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a
grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress
[that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.
This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we
stress the Constitution's words have meaning and historical context
and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which
leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your
beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even
care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful
chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules
Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll
ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is
discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they
pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without
actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of
others -- to the courthouse to stop this.
I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution
than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!
...It's not only absurd on its face -- that these power-hungry
ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim
that the House voted on something it never voted on... that's not only
absurd on its face, it's blatantly unconstitutional!
Please stay tuned for updates to this post as we will provide
additional insight from Levin and other Constitutional experts.
Update 11-March-2010 21:03 ET:
Levin: I wanted to bring additional firepower on this subject, my
buddy Arthur Fergenson, who is a Constitutional expert and who has
argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, including Buckley vs.
Valeo...
What do you make of this unbelievable -- that they're even talking
about, this chairman of the Rules Committee -- acting as if members of
the House voted on something when they didn't actually vote on it?
Fergenson: It's preposterous. It's ludicrous. But it's also dangerous.
It's dangerous because, first, ...because [the U.S. Constitution's]
Article I Section VII says every bill -- and it capitalized "bill"
-- ...it is common sense that the bill is the same item, it can't be
multiple bills, it can't be mashups of bills. And, in fact, in 1986,
Gene Gressman, no conservative, and one of the experts -- the expert
-- on Supreme Court practice... was writing an article that was
dealing with a less problematic attempt to get around this section of
the Constitution... [Ed: the line-item veto] and he wrote, "By long
usage and plain meaning, 'Bill' means any singular and entire piece of
legislation in the form it was approved by the two houses."
...the bills have to be revoted until they are identical. Both
chambers have to vote on the bill.
If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House and there
were to be a bill presented to the President for his signature, that
was a bill that had not been voted on -- identically by the two Houses
of Congress -- that bill would be a nullity. It is not law. That is
chaos.
I cannot recall any circumstance in which that has happened.
...What we have here is a measure, that if Obama signed it, would
immediately affect taxation, it would change rules of practice in the
insurance industry, it would regulate 17% of the nation's economy, and
it would be done without any legal basis whatsoever!
Update 11-March-2010 21:12 ET:
Fergenson: It's like, the closest I can think of is martial law! The
President would have no authority -- there would be no law! It's not
like it would be constitutional or not. There would be. No. Law.
Levin: What do you make of people who sit around and even think of
things like this? To me, they are absolutely unfit to even be in high
office!
Fergenson: You're right, Mark. And I would go back to what caused
Gressman to write this... he was asked for his comments by the
Senate... because the Senate was trying to do the equivalent of a line-
item veto. And, in 1986, you were in the Justice Department under
Attorney General Meese... there was a proposal... to take a bill and
divide it into little pieces and.. then the President would sign each
one or veto each one. That was unconstitutional. A Senate Rules
Committee reported it unfavorably.
Update 11-March-2010 21:36 ET:
Levin: You know what's interesting about this... Attorney General Ed
Meese considered it unconstitutional even though President Reagan had
wanted a line-item veto. And President Reagan agreed that it was
unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution...
...Speaking for myself, I would tell the people who listen to this
program that you are under absolutely no obligation to comply with it
[this health care bill] because it is not, in fact, law. Do you agree
with me?
Fergenson: I agree with you. I believe it would be tested by the
Supreme Court. I believe that, under these circumstances, chaos would
reign. There is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. The
courts are empowered to determine whether it's unconstitutional...
it's not a law.
Under this scenario, the various arms of the federal government will
be acting under a law that does not exist.
-----------------------
namaste;
bodhi