D. appear set to pass Senate bill without voting on it
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/12/house ... ing-on-it/
House Democrats appear set to pass Senate bill without voting on it
By Jon Ward 03/12/10 at 1:24 PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks with fellow lawmakers outside the West Wing of the White House after meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010. Left to right are House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., House Education and Labor Chairman Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., Pelosi, House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
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.
It’s called the “Slaughter Solution” (prepare for a weekend of endless TV gabbing about it).
And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the tactic, and that they won’t allow Republicans, and the public, to see the text of any legislation for 72 hours before a vote.
“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.
“The outrage to me on the part of the public is going to be focused on the fact that there is not even an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote,” Cantor said.
Here’s the reason Democrats are using such a complicated procedure: many in the House completely do not trust the Senate to pass fixes to the bill passed by the Senate in December. But according to the rules of reconciliation, the House must go first in passing the Senate bill and passing a reconciliation fix.
So House Democrats have been searching for a way to alleviate members’ concerns that if they vote for the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing to fix it, they will be hung out to dry as having supported a piece of legislation that many across the country dislike, either for spending reasons, or because of special provisions like the extra money for Nebraska’s Medicaid population (the “Cornhusker kickback”).
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.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, alluded to all this at her weekly press conference Friday.
“There are certain assurances that they want and that we will get for them before I ask them to take a vote,” Pelosi said.
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.”
Despite doubt among some on Capitol Hill on whether the “Slaughter solution” was feasible, Cantor expressed no doubt that the tactic could be used.
“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.
Hoyer rejected the idea that Republicans have not had enough time to review the legislation.
“You have had months to review the substance of that bill. You don’t like it. We understand. You’re going to oppose it. We understand that as well. The fact of the matter is you cannot say you have had no notice of each and every provision for over two months,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.
Cantor said he wanted 72 hours to review the final text of the reconciliation bill.
“The reconciliation bill is new text. He claims it’s old hat, but this is clearly where they’re reconciling differences,” Cantor said, expressing concern that Democrats would rush the final text to the House floor for a vote to keep “sweeteners” used to buy off votes from being discovered.
Democrats are coalescing around a schedule for the bill’s route to the House floor for a vote. They are expecting a final score from the Congressional Budget Office later today.
On Monday, the House Budget Committee will mark the bill up, leading to an expected vote in the Rules Committee on Wednesday, with a final vote by the full House possible next weekend.
The question remains, however, whether Pelosi will even be able to round up enough votes to pass a bill.
Momentum continued to go the wrong direction for her on Friday, as two more Democrats said they are opposed to the bill.
This just proves even more how out of control the Democrats are. NEVER in the history of our republic has this ever been done. This congrees is fully aligned against what the people want. These representative branches do not represnt the american people any more and either does Obama.Unlees you support an authoritarian Gov.as long as it supports your agenda. All you libs need to speak up and speak out against this.
This is a COMPLETE VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUION and everthing it stands for. Think about this for a minute before you comment. Were talking about the house acting as they already voted under article1 sec. 7 clause 2 on an underlined bill. when in fact all they are voting on are amendments called recocilation to a bill that does not exist in the house. :wtf: :x :?
House Democrats appear set to pass Senate bill without voting on it
By Jon Ward 03/12/10 at 1:24 PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks with fellow lawmakers outside the West Wing of the White House after meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010. Left to right are House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., House Education and Labor Chairman Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., Pelosi, House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
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.
It’s called the “Slaughter Solution” (prepare for a weekend of endless TV gabbing about it).
And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the tactic, and that they won’t allow Republicans, and the public, to see the text of any legislation for 72 hours before a vote.
“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.
“The outrage to me on the part of the public is going to be focused on the fact that there is not even an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote,” Cantor said.
Here’s the reason Democrats are using such a complicated procedure: many in the House completely do not trust the Senate to pass fixes to the bill passed by the Senate in December. But according to the rules of reconciliation, the House must go first in passing the Senate bill and passing a reconciliation fix.
So House Democrats have been searching for a way to alleviate members’ concerns that if they vote for the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing to fix it, they will be hung out to dry as having supported a piece of legislation that many across the country dislike, either for spending reasons, or because of special provisions like the extra money for Nebraska’s Medicaid population (the “Cornhusker kickback”).
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.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, alluded to all this at her weekly press conference Friday.
“There are certain assurances that they want and that we will get for them before I ask them to take a vote,” Pelosi said.
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.”
Despite doubt among some on Capitol Hill on whether the “Slaughter solution” was feasible, Cantor expressed no doubt that the tactic could be used.
“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.
Hoyer rejected the idea that Republicans have not had enough time to review the legislation.
“You have had months to review the substance of that bill. You don’t like it. We understand. You’re going to oppose it. We understand that as well. The fact of the matter is you cannot say you have had no notice of each and every provision for over two months,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.
Cantor said he wanted 72 hours to review the final text of the reconciliation bill.
“The reconciliation bill is new text. He claims it’s old hat, but this is clearly where they’re reconciling differences,” Cantor said, expressing concern that Democrats would rush the final text to the House floor for a vote to keep “sweeteners” used to buy off votes from being discovered.
Democrats are coalescing around a schedule for the bill’s route to the House floor for a vote. They are expecting a final score from the Congressional Budget Office later today.
On Monday, the House Budget Committee will mark the bill up, leading to an expected vote in the Rules Committee on Wednesday, with a final vote by the full House possible next weekend.
The question remains, however, whether Pelosi will even be able to round up enough votes to pass a bill.
Momentum continued to go the wrong direction for her on Friday, as two more Democrats said they are opposed to the bill.
This just proves even more how out of control the Democrats are. NEVER in the history of our republic has this ever been done. This congrees is fully aligned against what the people want. These representative branches do not represnt the american people any more and either does Obama.Unlees you support an authoritarian Gov.as long as it supports your agenda. All you libs need to speak up and speak out against this.
This is a COMPLETE VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUION and everthing it stands for. Think about this for a minute before you comment. Were talking about the house acting as they already voted under article1 sec. 7 clause 2 on an underlined bill. when in fact all they are voting on are amendments called recocilation to a bill that does not exist in the house. :wtf: :x :?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
What a crock of shit. Don't you ever get bored with repeating the same fear mongering, reactionary gibberish?
By the way, your views do not represent the views of 'The American people', which is why Obama was elected and not John McCain.
Get over it.
if this is so unconstitutional why has it been used before, and at least 2.5 times more by gop controlled congress than dem controlled congress??
the gop has had 10 years of majority to do something about health care and did nothing. obama gave them over a year to come to the table and negotiate but all they did is put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" or just a plain old "NOOOOOOOOO!!!". they had their chance, it serves them right, fuck 'em... whiney little babies...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
For once, I actually agree with you on one salient point - the Congress is passing something that's not what the American people want: nearly 70% of Americans want a public option, yet the Democratic Congress and the White House are preventing this from being enacted.
That said, given how the stupid filibuster rule has prevented the Senate from passing a decent healthcare bill (never mind that Max Baucus inexplicably decided bipartisanship was more important than passing a good bill), the House was correct in distrusting the Senate until they actually have a reconciliation bill out before the House can vote on the original Senate bill - so the self executing clause makes sense to keep the Senate honest.
And furthermore, reconciliation rules were invoked 22 times since they were adopted in the early 1970s - guess which party used it the most? If you said the Republicans, 16 times, including the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and Newt Gingrich's Contract ON America.... you win the jackpot.
You know what they say - the Senate is the place where good laws go to die. There's over 200 bills that the House has passed that are languishing in the Senate as we speak. So kudos to Nancy Pelosi for standing firm.
it is funny how quick republicans are to forget about the Bush tax cuts being passes on reconciliation
something that did nothing to benefit the average American whereas health care reform would
You obviously can't read or your just too damn ignorant to even understand what this means. You can't amend a bill that has not been passed in the house and that has not been signed by the president.No other congress has said that they passed a bill that they never voted on. They are going to claim that they voted on a senate bill,and they will have not voted on it. That has nothing to do with reconciliation.
Really :? maybe 70% of the left does, but not acoording to this poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... he_economy
Let me break this down so some of you can understand this.
When the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES can say that they voted on a bill that they never voted on.
A bill that is then sent to the President and signed into law.
A bill that is going to NATIONALIZE 17% of our economy.
A bill that will impose mandates on you,your employer,and small businesses.
A Bill that will impose masive new taxes across the board.
A bill that will have an incredible effect on the nature of our society changing it potentially forever.
A bill that they do not have the votes to pass in the senate,and that's what they are required to do under THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION !! If the constituion doesn't mean what it says than it simply doesn't exist.
When we have a power hungry cabal of politicians that say we are going to pretend that we voted on a bill when we didn't vote on a bill. What's left ?
The idea that we could be compelled to comply with a fiat from washington that hasn't been passed as a matter of law because Nancy pelosi, Hary Reed,Rahm Emanual, and Obama say we must is fucking Joke.
Yes, really.
For one thing, the Rasmussen poll you cited shows opposition to the current health care bill, which does NOT have the public option. Ask the relevant questions, then it's more like 77%. (58%+19%).
I'm not even going to address the right wing slant of Rasmussen, but your glaring misrepresentation of the public option's numbers should be quite obvious.
Let me break it down so YOU can understand this.
1. There's nothing in the law that prevents the House from approving the amendment before the original. A bill does not become law until the President signs it, so even if several bills are passed out of order in Congress, what's important is that the President signs them in order.
2. There is no nationalization of the economy, especially since there isn't even a public option in the proposed bills atm. I WISH there was a Medicare type single payer in it, but my socialist heart is broken again. The private insurance companies are still in the game, and they're the only players in the game.
3. If by incredible effect you mean 30 million more people insured, nobody denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and nobody cut off from care when they're deemed too sick to cover, then it's certainly change I can believe in.
4. Try looking at what the definition of tyranny is. All those legislators were elected lawfully, and they're not doing anything out of the ordinary and neither is the President. (Well, unless you count the insane number of filibusters the Republican minority in the Senate have put up). We still have a democracy.
5. Yeah there's excise taxes here, and they're on the middle class. Blame the conservative louts on the Senate Finance Committee and the corporatists in the majority like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman for scuttling the good stuff.
I can't see why we can't just repeal the Bush tax cuts and use the revenue to fund a Medicare for all plan that covers everyone. It's cheaper, it's simpler, and it makes sure everyone is covered.
6. The President's health care proposals were originally thought of by Republicans... just so you know.
if this is so unconstitutional why has it been used before, and at least 2.5 times more by gop controlled congress than dem controlled congress??
the gop has had 10 years of majority to do something about health care and did nothing. obama gave them over a year to come to the table and negotiate but all they did is put their fingers in their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" or just a plain old "NOOOOOOOOO!!!". they had their chance, it serves them right, fuck 'em... whiney little babies...[/quote]
You obviously can't read or your just too damn ignorant to even understand what this means. You can't amend a bill that has not been passed in the house and that has not been signed by the president.No other congress has said that they passed a bill that they never voted on. They are going to claim that they voted on a senate bill,and they will have not voted on it. That has nothing to do with reconciliation.[/quote]
are you going to address any of the questions or concerns i posed to you? i did not mention ammending anything. my question to you is are you going to address my points or just cry another river??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
*watches Clint Eastwood ride by slowly on a Pale Horse, squinting as he looks over the sleepy town.*
Godfather.
In retrospect:
1. House passes decent bill in 2009 (which included a public option, despite Stupak amendment)
2. Senate passes crappy bill after being watered down thanks to Republican filibuster threats, appallingly long, drawn out process from Max Baucus' committee, and blackmail from Senators Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
3. Reconciliation committee convenes, House finds Senate bill too repugnant, Senate can't pass better one which can overcome filibuster. Obama requests that the Senate bill be ping-ponged (passed by the House as is). House refuses.
4. Obama decides to support Senate bill, then puts forth his own ideas after meeting with members of Congress.
5. House declares it won't support Senate bill unless it's fixed. Harry Reid - finally - decides budget reconciliation process is the only way to get the bill fixed that avoids filibuster.
6. House declares support for reconciliation, but wants to wait till an actual reconciliation bill comes out of the Senate first before they approve the Senate bill. Meanwhile, they've adopted language in their reconciliation bill which considers original Senate bill passed - hence the objection of the OP in this thread.
it dosn't sound like the public get's much of a choice on it either way,it would be nice to have congress or somebody ? write up a few do-a bull choices and give them to the public to vote on per state.
Godfather.
as far as reconciliation: yes the republicans have used it more,17 out 0f 23. Reducing deficits or increasing surpluses not using for to pass a bill as large as heallthcare.
The link I posted has nothing ti do with this though. I guess it's over everyones head.
So let me try again...
You can't pass a bill in the senate or the house without voting on it and saying you did.
Why is that so hard for all of you to understand ?
Is this link good enough for you.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 67402.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... k2ZTgwNDk=
Re: The Slaughter Solution [Anthony Dick]
I'm surprised there hasn't been more constitutional outcry over the so-called "Slaughter Solution." As the Washington Examiner describes the proposal:
Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor. 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.
The question here is whether the House can "deem" a bill to be passed without voting directly on it — that is, without actually passing it. I think not.
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that "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" (emphasis added).
It seems that voting on a rule that deems a bill to be passed differs importantly from actually passing a bill. The difference is not just formalistic but deeply functional. A core purpose of the constitutional legislative process is to ensure that lawmakers are held accountable to the public. Their legislative voting record has to be clear, so that the electorate can make an informed decision on whether to reelect them. The Slaughter Solution is a piece of subterfuge designed specifically to short-circuit this purpose of electoral accountability, so that congressmen can "say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself." The very attractiveness of the maneuver shows that it plays some role in insulating lawmakers from popular disapproval of their vote, and for that reason it is constitutionally noxious.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
don't forget the democrats and Obama said they supported a public option previously (Obama even campaigned saying any health care reform MUST have a public option!) but said it couldn't pass because they needed 60 votes to block the republicans filibustering it....and now that Obama is asking to push it through with a simple majority, which the dems have, it seems odd they are not including the public option when they claimed if only a simple majority was all that was needed it could pass :roll:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
something tells me that "letfreedomringblog" is a tea party or "conservative" blog site, and for that reason i am not going to even click the link because i am fairy certain its going to be heavily biased....like i said you find links to prove your point and i do the same. i'm not in the debate mood today as i just scored kc and stl tix
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I actually was refering to the 2 links above that one. But who the fuck cares dude if it is. So in other words guess you don't have a problem with this ?
Any means to an end is that it ?
How can you even support something like this and say you support the constituion ?
2. i don't have a problem beacuse it is not strictly prohibitted by the constitution.
face it, your side lost the elections, you have to deal with the outcome. i dealt with it for 8 years, now its your turn. if the GOP had really been even halfway interested in playing ball and fixing health care their way they would have done it way before now. obama has given them a year actually over a year and they have done nothing but stall, whine and complain...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So... how would you classify the $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires that George W Bush signed with a Republican congress? Reducing the deficit? Increasing surpluses? Passing a smaller bill than healthcare (which costs $800 billion over 10 years)?
I really can't be bothered to address the rest of what you posted, since we've gone through all this before. I think you're a good guy underneath (you're a Pearl Jam fan, that's proof enough
I don't know why I even care or much less waste my time and energy on DRONES like you.
:roll: :? :lolno: This isn't propaganda. I don't know how to make it any more clear to you. It's a violation of the constituion. I know I know you could care less about that thing right ?
http://www.louise.house.gov/ I guess this is just a made up person, by the way she's the one who wants to do this.
Deal with the outcome ??? The only outcome your going to see is if they try this shit they will loose both houses. which they already stand to do in November.
Please tell me what it's like living in denial ?? and.....
You really need to change your user name becuase you wouldn't know the TRUTH if it kicked you in the face.
Oh so now you can't be botherd
Im not a millionaire and certainly not billionaire more like a hundredaire,and I got a TAX cut.
JESUS How many more times do I have to say this ?????
THIS HAS NOTHING TO WITH RECONCILIATION !!!!!!!!
Not to mention if this bill does pass it's not even going to go into effect for another 3 years,and how do you think they are going to pay for it ?
Raise taxes how else do you think ???
if it is a violation of the constitution, which article or section? if it is a violation of the constitution then why are the only people concerned about it the right wing blogosphere and fox news and the teabaggers, who most likely do not know the constitution from a hole in the ground...their heads are so filled with lies and disinformation like death panels and whatnot that they don't even know what is true and what is false...we want action and this bill needs to pass. in my opinion it is not strong enough, as i want single payor but it is a start...what is wrong with not allowing insurance companies to drop you for a pre-existing condition and what is wrong with not allowing sudden and drastic premium increases?? i have talked at length about my positions in the other threads and frankly i am done discussing this with you.
again i am not clicking your link. i just can not be bothered to look at your information anymore on this issue. coming from you it is probably just another stolen blog. i have my mind made up and my ideas of what is best for the country. i just see things differently than you do. if that makes me a drone then so be it.
quick question, why are you so quick to attack me when people in this thread are making excellent points counter to your assertions and you are ignoring them??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Well, not quite a novel use of the straw man argument, but I gotta give ya props. Neither am I and I got a tax cut too. But it still doesn't address the salient fact that the $1.3 trillion tax cut exploded the national debt and forced the government to start borrowing more money just to make ends meet. I thought you conservative fellows were all about keeping debt low and not borrowing money?
And really, I'm not a huge fan of the proposed reconciliation bill either. I already said I don't like the excise tax system that the Senate inserted to pay for it - that's going to hit 80% of all Americans, not just the ones with good health care plans (given the horrible misnomer "cadillac plans" as if they were some fancy indulgence). I don't understand why you keep beating this particular horse after it's dead.
We're ultimately not going to cut costs as long as we leave the insurance companies in charge. Only a single payer system will ever get us on the track to fiscal responsibility as far as health care. It worked for every other industrialized country in the world, why not us?
- the system needs to be fixed and anything is better then nothing..... our health care system cost society as a whole millions as is, so the gains with the current bill are better then the losses of the current situation (ie insurance companies raise premiums and say that they have to becuase the cost of treatment is going up, they # of sick is going up and the covered are paying for the the uncovered) so you are already paying for the uninsured via your premiums, why not have your prems stay a lower constant rate and pay for others via your taxes (which is what the mandate would do)
- instead of bitching propose something that will cover millions of people (btw Massachusetts has a mandate for insurance and it seems to be working overall) either way something needs to be done. I have spent the last two days at the county hospital here in Chicago which is where the uninsured goes to get treatment. The system is overwhelmed right now. The lines there have been growing over the last two years and when I sit there and look around at all the people I see folks that need treatment....... mental health, disability and such.... but most get denied medicaid
- they current process to get a bill passed might seem shady but it is the ONLY way to get something done. Congress apparently is only able to work unless they are passes tax cuts or authorizing war. Or I suppose holding a hearing investigating the latest news story. The point being the harder issues... Health Care, Immigration, Social Security and such..... nothing gets done unless it is jammed through the path of least resistance. We are working off systems that are 40-50 years old and need to be updated and revised.
- why doesn't anything get done...... because our elected officials are trying to please all of the people all of the time, doesn't work too often
I am. Look there's no denying that Bush spent way to much,but that's not what this thread is about.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7Article 1 Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
You can't pass a bill without voting on it and saying you did or didn't.... Jesus man this is basic high school civics..and that's what congresswoman Slaughter wants to do.
Maybe it's because we want to start over on this bill, and most of you on the left are willing to do whatever it takes to get this bill passed, even if it is a violation of our constituion. You actually think the other networks are going to even mention something like this
some people is very disturbing to me. You say that I don't know the constituion. Well you are wrong in that respect. I agree with you that there are many on the right that don't know anything about it ,but there are probably just as many on the left that don't know and don't even care.
So we should ignore what the constituion says ? :wtf: :crazy:
For the record I agree with the fact that we need to do something about the high cost of premiums...Just so you know not that any of you care but my mom pays over $400 a month for health ins, She's 60 ,non smoker,doesn't drink, all she has is high blood presure. But even she doesn' want this biill to pass.
our premiums will go up and so will are taxes on goods and services not to mention we will loose jobs, You know those people that work for those evil ins companies.
What do you think that's going to happen to those people ?
Can you provide links were the Slaughter Solution has been used before?
The purpose of the Slaughter amendment is not to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. It is designed to avoid having House members actually vote on the Senate bill. The whole point is to “deem” the Senate bill passed without actually having a recorded vote on the bill. That is what whole constitutionality question is about, not reconciliation.
Is the Slaughter Solution constitutional?
Can the House vote to adopt a rule which “deems” that a particular bill has been passed, even if that particular bill has not been passed?
http://volokh.com/2010/03/13/is-the-slaughter-solution-constitutional/#comments