The Slaughter Rule is Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 3

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Click to expand...
The above is exactly how both Houses have always taken a voice vote and declared the winners. All without ever recording who shouted what.

Just in case you were wondering, ganai.
Harry said:
Why is this happening?
Click to expand...
Because the progressive left know better than us plebes how to manage our lives. (I should now ban myself for this partisan political statement.)

Seriously, though, this is being done in this manner because the House leadership knows that they do not have enough votes to pass the Senate bill on its own merit. Does anyone seriously think that the Senate is going to allow the House to gut their own bill by amending it with the reconciliation bill?

It has been brought out a couple of hours ago, that this reconciliation bill, is a direct replacement for everything in the Senate bill.
 
At least one of the states has promised to sue congress over this if it passes. If it does find the supreme court I wonder if the justices are impartial enough to forget the snubbing they got at the state of the union address.
 
The above is exactly how both Houses have always taken a voice vote and declared the winners. All without ever recording who shouted what.

Just in case you were wondering, ganai.
Click to expand...
Right, but that isn't specific to self-enacting rules - it goes for any vote.
I just don't see how the House could 'hide' their votes on this - surely at least 1/5 of them will want a record of the vote?
Or is there some other parliamentary trick happening here that I'm unaware of?

As far as why its happening - the Senate bill, as it currently is, wouldn't pass the House, and also, the Democrats no longer have 60 votes in the Senate, so they couldn't break a filibuster on a health care bill modified to get through the House.

So for the Democrats, its the Senate bill, and then modify it after it is passed, or no health care reform at all.
 
Antipitas...

However, the one overriding difference is that in the past, such a procedural move never encompassed legislation that will effect every single person living within the United States. Nor has any prior procedural move encompassed legislation that attempts to give the federal government control over one-sixth of the entire GDP of the nation.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get how this has Constitutional significance. The Constitution makes no procedural distinctions based on the scope of legislation... if it would be Constitutional for Congress to use this exact process to rename the Post Office in Frog Balls, Arkansas, it's Constitutional for them to use to pass the health care bill. From the perspective of the Constitution, a bill is a bill.

This has come up a lot on talk radio in the last few days... first it was "this process has never been used before!!!", and then it became widely known that it in fact has been used, hundreds of times, by every Speaker in every Congress in living memory. So then the objection switched to "this process has never been used to pass legislation of this scope", which is, even if true, irrelevant to any discussion of whether it's permissible.

They have done it in the past, and been challenged in Court, and they won those challenges. Ergo, they can do it again now.

--Shannon
 
I find it amazing the extent to which the party in power seems willing to shoot themselves in the foot politically over the healthcare issue.

Reconciliation, at the very least, sets a very bad precedent that could very easily come back to bite the Democrats in their proverbial hind ends in the future. What is often misunderstood about reconciliation is its purpose. A filibuster over a budget bill would be unconstitutional as Congress is Constitutionally mandated to produce a budget, doing nothing simply is not a legal option (hence the proper term: Budget Reconciliation). The problem with using it for other means is the precedent that it sets: should the Democrats find themselves in the minority again (which is a very real possibility in just a matter of months) then they have basically lost their power to filibuster and would be at the mercy of the Republicans.

The Slaughter Rule is, in a nut shell, a way for the House to pass potentially unpopular bills without having their individual names attached to them. By using this tactic for such a well-known piece of legislation, however, they have brought to the public's attention the method in which they are able to "fly under the radar" so to speak. In doing so, it would seem to me that they leave the tactic open for court challenges (remember everything's Constitutional until SCOTUS says otherwise), or at the very least a campaign issue for future political opponents (If elected, I'll abolish the Slaughter Rule).

Then again, the lack of political wisdom here is par for the course, this whole healthcare debate has been more politically damaging for the Democratic Party than what most Democrat administrations would be willing to endure.
 
Webleymkv said:
"Then again, the lack of political wisdom here is par for the course, this whole healthcare debate has been more politically damaging for the Democratic Party than what most Democrat administrations would be willing to endure."
Click to expand...
'...where you stand often depends on where you sit".

If you look at the matter from the perspective of the Obama Administration, I suspect the view appears differently: Obama was elected on a "hope & change" platform, and views health care as a devastating challenge to domestic politics...along with being financially un-sustainable into the future.

If he fails to achieve SOME sort of bill, regardless of what it actually accomplishes, then his legacy is diminished; his ability to 'correct a looming financial, social, and healthcare-related disaster' vanishes; and his probability of being elected to a second term approaches near-zero.

While no concensus exists on an appropriate resolution, there are many who are willing to concede that health care costs represent a significant burden to many citizens. Lots of Americans would like something done about it. They simply do not agree on what ought to be done.

[And frankly, IMO the shrill arguments warning of "socialized medicine" conveniently ignore the fact that we already have socialized medicine in the form of medicaid and medicare, which together provide health care to something like 30% of Americans in one form or another (depending on whose numbers you accept). So it's a bit odd that this is held up as the boogeyman under the bed...]

Congress is in a spot where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

(They ought to be used to it by now, I suppose...)
 
I didn't think the constitutional argument was about procedure, but whether they could force an individual to buy health insurance. Unlike car insurance there is no other party's losses to cover, just one's own. The argument can be made however that since you will get health care anyway and somebody else will have to pay for it you are effecting the rights of others.
 
Doc Intrepid, I agree that Obama and the Democrats have put themselves between a rock and a hard place, politically at this point. You're right in that they've passed the point of no return, but that wasn't the case last summer. There are many other issues that Obama campaigned on which would probably give him just as big, if not bigger, political boosts than healthcare without the degree of risk. Were I Obama, I'd have "tested the waters" so to speak with healthcare, and once I got the reaction that he did, I'd have either let the issue quietly fade away or scale back the changes that I try to make.

Politically, I think that taking on issues like tort reform and insurance across state lines first would be wiser as Republicans support these measures. By doing that, the Democrats could still take credit for accomplishing some sort of reform, compromise with Republicans (this seems to be what the moderates want), and use it as a basis for more sweeping changes later if the desired results aren't achieved (we tried it your way and it didn't work, now it's our turn).

Honestly, I think that the mistake here is letting healthcare overshadow issues like the economy and Iraq/Afghanistan Wars (two issues that Obama campaigned on heavily). However, at this point he's pushed health care so hard for so long that to drop it or compromise with Republicans would make him appear two-faced or weak to his base and opens him up for attack from both sides (Hillary 2012 anyone?).
 
One thing confusing me is why they might need an additional 16,500 IRS agents, yet:
Click to expand...

IRS will be the enforcers and collectors of the fines on miscreants who don't have the right kind of insurance, among other things. So they will have to be auditing health plans as well as your income numbers. I guess one will have to file a proof of insurance every year, and perhaps a copy of the plan, in some cases, if it has not yet been reviewed and found compliant with whatever law ultimately is written. Further information collecton of your personal information.

When they own your bank and your doc, they have a lot of leverage on you to conform, and vote the "right" way.

This is an ecological disaster, too. Think of all the trees which have to be converted to paper in this process.
 
One thing confusing me is why they might need an additional 16,500 IRS agents, yet:
Click to expand...

There's nothing confusing about that to me, and it points to the real constitutional problem with this bill, which isn't the procedure being used in the House.

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a fine on people who don't have government approved health insurance.

That's using the power to tax to force a private purchase. That is NOT what the power to tax is for, and furthermore, the entire bill is an assault on the structure of our government. James Madison, Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Click to expand...

Is buying health insurance an external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, or is it more one of the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State?

This isn't a proper federal role, and the power to tax and even the vaunted commerce power don't authorize it, IMO.
 
Maybe my sarcasm is a bit too dry, I see a revenue bill.:) Others, you, myself get to pay officially for someone else's healthcare or union carve-out or abortion or whatever. Obviously illegals will be on the roll as well since the court will eventually rule they are entitled(similar to public schools).

Since it's a revenue bill(to me), I wish it had come out of the house. But oh well, none of this is my biggest issue with it.
 
I think this whole thing will be challenged under Clinton Vs. The City of NY.

statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure"
Click to expand...

The AGs of various states are lining up to sue the fed over this thing.
 
If the Feds can force us to buy health insurance, for our own good and the promotion of the general welfare, think about the other things they'll be able to force us to buy (and use).

Bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, trigger locks, etc. It could get ugly. They can make us buy things 'just in case we need it', like life jackets, and other stuff we may never use, but they will force us to have, just in case. After all, you never know when you'll be caught in a flood like N.O. and need a lifejacket. What about an inflatable raft for all folks in any federally declared flood plain. The opportunities for the feds to force us to buy crap is endless. Whether they would really go that far is up for debate. Based on past history, I favor the odds saying they would go quite far. To save us from ourselves? That's what they would have us believe. What they really want to do is save money that we would otherwise force them to spend because the put a program in place that demands they protect us from ourselves. It's getting out of control and they will need to maintain control, ever more so. :mad:
 
Bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, trigger locks, etc. It could get ugly. They can make us buy things 'just in case we need it', like life jackets, and other stuff we may never use, but they will force us to have, just in case. After all, you never know when you'll be caught in a flood like N.O. and need a lifejacket. What about an inflatable raft for all folks in any federally declared flood plain. The opportunities for the feds to force us to buy crap is endless. Whether they would really go that far is up for debate. Based on past history, I favor the odds saying they would go quite far. To save us from ourselves? That's what they would have us believe. What they really want to do is save money that we would otherwise force them to spend because the put a program in place that demands they protect us from ourselves. It's getting out of control and they will need to maintain control, ever more so.
Click to expand...

Yup, and to paraphrase C. S. Lewis, those who torment us for our own good will never back off or down. Their consciences won't let them, or consider any limit in their "caring" for us. They need this "caring" to fulfill themselves as wonderful people. An ego trip on steroids.
 
A few minutes ago, this from the Wall Street Journal (I've added some selected quotes, click on the URL to read the entire article):
House leaders determined Saturday that they will stage a vote on the Senate's health-care bill, dropping a much-criticized strategy of allowing lawmakers to "deem" the landmark legislation into law. But the outcome of that vote remained in doubt as a pivotal bloc continued to hold out its support over the bill's abortion language.

....

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to have the House hold two votes, one on the Senate bill and one on a separate package of revisions, reversed her position from earlier in the week, when she said she preferred to use a legislative procedure called "deem and pass." Republicans had accused Pelosi (D-Calif.) of trying to dodge responsibility for health reform, and even some Democrats complained about the move.

....

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) hailed the change as "a victory for the American people," and he vowed to force Democrats to stand up, one by one, to announce their vote for the $940 billion bill. The measure contains a number of politically fraught provisions, including a special deal for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that would require taxpayers nationally to pay for an expansion of Medicaid in his state.

"Now House Democrats will face two crucial votes tomorrow," Boehner said in a statement. "They will have to vote on the Senate-passed bill, stuffed with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and infamous backroom deals -- and they will vote on something worse: their 'fix' with more taxes, more Medicare cuts, and new special deals."

Later, Boehner told reporters: "This is not over. They do not have the votes yet. We've got to keep working to make sure that they never, ever, ever, ever get the votes to pass this bill."
Click to expand...
So it looks like the self-enacting rule will not be used, tomorrow.

Still, in all, this is a bad thing for Americans looking for a smaller, leaner Federal Government.
 
Curious. I can't help but wonder if those who cut the "special deals" will be praised or punished. All politics being local and all. :rolleyes:

But barring a repeal of the 16th it will be hard to strike it down.
 
Is buying health insurance an external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, or is it more one of the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State?
Click to expand...

The Federalist papers are not the basis of any US law. They're the interpretation of various people of how they believe the US constitution would work, as of a couple hundred years ago. Today, if you espoused some of the ideas there that the federal government had no business doing anything besides those few things, then there would be no case for preventing a state from totally banning firearms under the claim of "states' rights."

Bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, trigger locks, etc. It could get ugly. They can make us buy things 'just in case we need it', like life jackets, and other stuff we may never use, but they will force us to have, just in case.
Click to expand...

No offense intended, but this is either paranoid or silly, depending on how you look at it. You're already required to own and use things like a bicycle or motorcycle helmet if you're engaging in those activities--otherwise a requirement for you to own them "just in case" would be laughed out of serious society.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top