Quote :

" March 15, 2010 House Democrats appear set to pass Senate bill without voting on it. Republicans now expect Democrats to pass health care through the House with a trick only Capitol Hill could dream up: approving the Senate bill without voting on it. Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate bill is “deemed passed.” So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place. Technically, using the “Slaughter solution,” they’ll never have voted for the bill they find odious, even if their vote on the reconciliation legislation will have been the vote that passed the Senate bill into law. The “Slaughter solution” is named for House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, the New York Democrat who came up with the idea. She told the Daily Caller on Thursday that the chances of her procedure being used were “pretty good.” “It’s a self-executing rule. It is akin to passage but hidden in a rule as a side-note, passing the 2,700-page, $1 trillion bill, oh by the way,” he said."

Hey a new way to violate the Constitution!

Quote :

"U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II. ...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…"

Using a house rule... to pass a major piece of legislation that most of the country doesn't want?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/12/house-democrats-appear-set-to-pass-senate-bill-without-voting-on-it/#ixzz0iDjUbAff

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 1:45 AM. Reason : .]

3/15/2010 1:44:52 AM

and they said dubya shat all over the Constitution, lol. Anyone who votes for that bill should be tried for treason. At the very least, they should be impeached

3/15/2010 1:49:28 AM

Obama is part of the executive branch, not the legislatve, so I don't quite understand the implication with the Bush reference.

Also, you need to look up the definition of treason.

3/15/2010 7:51:02 AM

That article seems to play pretty loose with the facts and terminologies.

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 8:03 AM. Reason : ]

3/15/2010 8:03:00 AM

I'm still a little confused as to why they had to pass it originally at 7:05 a.m. on December 24.

3/15/2010 8:29:38 AM

this is absolutely constitutional you dumbass.


just because it is sleazy and just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean its ok for you to abandon all rational thought and start spouting lunatic ravings.

Quote :

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

/STUPID ASS THREAD

3/15/2010 9:13:16 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who votes for that bill should be tried for treason. At the very least, they should be impeached"

3/15/2010 9:43:51 AM

unbelievable.

"I disagree with someone's politics, therefore they are treasonous"

3/15/2010 11:03:40 AM

"I find it very believable."

3/15/2010 11:07:03 AM

Yay, cheap healthcare!

3/15/2010 3:59:44 PM

regardless of any other argument, this method is wrong and shows the lack of character of politicians. It's been used by both parties; however, never on such a large and controversial piece of legislation. Anyone who votes for it, on any bill should never be voted into office again. Furthermore, it should be barred from use. It's disgusting and in no way represents the ethical and fair democratic process.

3/15/2010 6:14:05 PM

In Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals these were the major points:

Quote :

" * The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. * In war, the end justifies almost any means. * Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. * Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa. * The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means. * Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. * The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. * Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. * You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. * Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace." "

3/15/2010 6:24:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm still a little confused as to why they had to pass it originally at 7:05 a.m. on December 24."

because republicans caved in on their stall tactics on december 24 for the senate part of the bill.

3/15/2010 6:24:26 PM

the GOP didn't cave in, they simply did not have the votes to sustain a filibuster, due to ben nelson and the now infamous cornhusker kickback.

3/15/2010 6:28:04 PM

but they could have kept kicking the can down the road in 30 hour increments.

3/15/2010 6:30:52 PM

Quote :

"this method is wrong and shows the lack of character of politicians"

but only when democrats do it right?

3/15/2010 6:35:17 PM

Quote :

"Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical."

Alinsky knew what he was talking about!

3/15/2010 6:38:23 PM

Quote :

"but only when democrats do it right?"

how about you read what I posted first. some of you lefties are fucking stupid:

Quote :

"Anyone who votes for it, on any bill should never be voted into office again"

3/15/2010 7:24:57 PM

Trolling Grade

Effort - D
Believability - B
Effectiveness - B-

Composite Score - C+

A commendable effort by EarthDogg. High marks for crazy conspiracy theory combined with link to right-wing Huffington Post website doppelganger. Deductions for lazy copypasta in lieu of actual discussion.

3/15/2010 7:57:55 PM

Quote :

"this is absolutely constitutional you dumbass."

No it's not. You can't pass a rule that violates the Constitution.

3/15/2010 11:13:46 PM

it doesn't violate the constitution - its been used many times prior to this.

don't be an imbecile.

3/16/2010 12:20:05 AM

that doesn't mean it's Constitutional. It only means it's been used before. It's possible that it was never used before on something really big like this, so no one gave a shit enough about it then. That does not, however, mean that is is Constitutional

3/16/2010 12:23:31 AM

fine - that's a good point.

however, the constitution gives the houses power to create their own rules. If they create a rule that says that by passing a modified version of the senate bill, they have passed the senate bill, then that's their prerogative. I would expect every court in the country to defer to the separate but equal branch of government in their own affairs. Wouldn't you? I'm not asking what you would HOPE the courts would do! The supreme court has typically shown deference in these types of tricky constitutional issues regarding separation of powers.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM. Reason : s]

3/16/2010 12:26:22 AM

so, if they create a rule that says it is OK to pass a law that says blacks should all be put in prison, is that Constitutional? Of course not. Passing the rule does NOT make it Constitutional. Implicit in the statement that the House can pass its own rules is that said rules must be Constitutional.

3/16/2010 12:29:32 AM

We should have some sort of Ultimate Court or something that decides what is constitutional, either that or we could just have you do it, whatever.

3/16/2010 1:40:37 AM

First of all, I said deference... Maybe in your world, that means complete capitulation, but over here in the sane world it means deference.

Second, I said that the courts would show deference to the separate but equal branches of government in their own affairs, particularly considering the fact that the constitution grants them power to govern themselves.

Now, again, maybe in your insane world, all blacks are a part of the US Congress, but over here on planet earth, a rule governing the legislature would not apply to an entire demographic group.

3/16/2010 2:00:34 AM

Quote :

"the constitution gives the houses power to create their own rules. If they create a rule that says that by passing a modified version of the senate bill, they have passed the senate bill, then that's their prerogative."

I'm not an expert, but between

Quote :

"U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II. ...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…"

and

Quote :

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

The first one clearly wins.
If "determining the rules of its proceedings" means you can bypass the rule stating that "in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays", then why have that rule in the first place? Clearly, "determining the rules of its proceedings" does not mean they can just re-write or ignore the rest of the Constitution.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 8:14 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 8:13:00 AM

clearly, since its been done since time immemorial

3/16/2010 9:15:05 AM

Anyone who votes for this bill should be KILLED.

3/16/2010 9:29:34 AM

Anyone who thinks about voting for the bill should be charged with a hate crime.

3/16/2010 9:55:33 AM

Anyone standing within 500' of the house when this bill is voted on should receive no less than 10 lashings!

3/16/2010 10:38:10 AM

Haven't you heard? This is all irrelevant! Sea lions are not required to abide by the constitution (duh!). The leader, the one they fished off Pier 39, is going to pass this bill, tell us all to go fuck ourselves, blink, eat a raw fish, clap, and then promptly do a somersault into the ocean.

I, for one, welcome our new pinniped overlords.

3/16/2010 11:07:33 AM

Quote :

"No it's not. You can't pass a rule that violates the Constitution."

you can't triple stamp a double stamp!!!

3/16/2010 5:46:26 PM

and I thought this would be about the slaughterhouse cases...

3/16/2010 5:48:59 PM

I wonder what the libs on here would be saying if this was Bush and the republicans pulling some sheisty shit like this

3/16/2010 5:53:11 PM

Quote :

"Obama is part of the executive branch, not the legislatve, so I don't quite understand the implication with the Bush reference."

I disagree completely with house democrats but as someone else said WTF does this have to do with Obama???

3/16/2010 6:04:25 PM

I'm not saying its right, but after a year of filibustering everything, holding up nominations with sometimes a single person upholding everything, turning on their own ideas when dems start supporting them, and Bunning's recent tactics, I have no sympathy for GOP whining about procedural tactics at all.

3/16/2010 6:12:49 PM

ya the GOP has been pretty babyish lately and abusing the filibuster. This though does not warrant the democrats completely circumventing the constitution through some made-up procedure.

Bending the rules is one thing (the GOP) but in essence the dems are breaking the rules.

3/16/2010 7:00:12 PM

Does it really matter if they vote or not? Everyone knows they have enough votes to win.

3/16/2010 7:18:34 PM

^^, ^^^ Abusing the filibuster, yes, but THAT's Constitutional, at least. I would HOPE the GOP whines about procedural tactics that are unconstitutional, and I would hope the Dems do it, too. Checks & balances.

3/16/2010 7:30:46 PM

My favorites are ones were the bill is worded so that a vote against is a vote for, and yes, that has been tried before.

3/16/2010 7:34:25 PM

Quote :

"ya the GOP has been pretty babyish lately and abusing the filibuster. This though does not warrant the democrats completely circumventing the constitution through some made-up procedure."

except that they didn't make it up and the constitution allows each body of congress to set their own rules.

3/16/2010 7:37:55 PM

Look, he's not going to get it, but just in case...

The bill will pass or not pass based on the yeas and nays. The wording of this particular bill and things like riders to bills are perfectly fine as long as they are within the procedural rules of the legislature.

3/16/2010 7:50:04 PM

Quote :

"^^, ^^^ Abusing the filibuster, yes, but THAT's Constitutional, at least. I would HOPE the GOP whines about procedural tactics that are unconstitutional, and I would hope the Dems do it, too. Checks & balances."

Where in the Constitution is the filibuster mentioned?

Hint, it's not. It is one of those rules that the Senate has decided to enact to regulate itself.

Your understanding of the Constitution does not exist.

3/16/2010 8:06:24 PM

Quote :

"Second, I said that the courts would show deference to the separate but equal branches of government in their own affairs, particularly considering the fact that the constitution grants them power to govern themselves. "

The Constitution may give them the power to govern themselves. But that doesn't mean they can govern themselves unConstitutionally. Would you say it would be OK for the House to pass a rule saying that they can override a presidential veto with only a simple majority? That's what I am getting at. They can make their own rules, but said rules are always trumped by the Constitution.

Quote :

"I'm not saying its right, but after a year of filibustering everything, holding up nominations with sometimes a single person upholding everything, turning on their own ideas when dems start supporting them, and Bunning's recent tactics, I have no sympathy for GOP whining about procedural tactics at all."

*cough*Bush nominees were held up by democrats in a similar fashion...*cough* Were you mad about that then? Reid, Pelosi, and Obama sure as fuck weren't.

Quote :

"Does it really matter if they vote or not? Everyone knows they have enough votes to win."

If they have the votes, THEN WHY NOT FUCKING VOTE ON IT ALREADY. When you have to resort to questionable tactics like THIS to get something passed, you might want to re-think what the fuck you are trying to pass in the first place.

3/16/2010 8:30:16 PM

Quote :

"*cough*Bush nominees were held up by democrats in a similar fashion...*cough* "

Not nearly to the same degree.

3/16/2010 8:32:23 PM

were you against it then? I just want to see if you are intellectually honest or just a partisan hack. I was opposed to the nuclear option then, just as I am opposed to it now

3/16/2010 8:34:00 PM

I think there is some role for the honest use of filibusters, and nomination holds, and the like, although I’d be hard pressed to say how much is justifiable and how much is too much.

But when Republican Senator Shelby puts a blanket hold on 70 nominations that strikes me as too much. When more filibustering threats are at this level it strikes me as too much. When comparing to the past, this strikes me as too much:

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=322052&

Quote :

"For proof, take a look at President Bush's first year in office: * Only 3 nominees waited to be confirmed for at least 3 months Compare these statistics with President Obama's first year: * 46 nominees waited to be confirmed for at least 3 months * 45 of Obama's nominees lingered for at least 4 months * 9 waited for at least 6 months"

3/16/2010 8:57:45 PM

I would personally be happy to see the filibuster disappear altogether, along with the unreal power that has come from the words "advise and consent"...a lot of this crap has just been 200 years of Congress expanding their own powers, the same way the Executive Branch has done. Keep things simple. Either we agree to pass laws as a group or not. If it's more complex than the "I'm just a bill" episode of schoolhouse rock, then you need to stop what you're doing.

Keep shit simple.

3/16/2010 9:03:09 PM

Set 'em up

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2010 10:05:32 PM