To pass a bill, what does the Constitution require?
Clause 2: 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. (See Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 here)
Nonetheless, Congress threatens not to abide by the Constitution.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself, according to a senior aide to House Republicans.
The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.
Like the Senate, which adopted its health care reform measure on Christmas Eve, the House passed its version last year. But there are major differences between the two measures, especially concerning federal funding of abortions. The Senate version includes billions of dollars to fund new health care clinics that would offer abortion services. The House bill was passed only after Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment barring federal funding for the procedure was included.
Slaughter’s approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version. The GOP aide, who requested anonymity, said a search of the House archives failed to reveal any previous use of the Slaughter Solution.
Earlier today, Slaughter told The Examiner’s Susan Ferrichio that a ruling from the Senate Parlimentarian would have no bearing on what the House does. The Parliamentarian said the Senate could not consider the reconcilliation bill until the Senate health care reform bill was signed into law by President Obama.
“We knew that. That’s not news to me. We always believed we had to have a signed bill before we reconcile.” Slaughter told Ferrichio. Slaughter wouldn’t say definitively if House leaders would employ her rule, and she said the Senate Parliamentarian “cannot rule on what we have to do over here.”
Late this afternoon, the GOP aide said “you can report it as fact, they are moving down that road.” (from here)
Think about this. Our leaders in the House of Representatives want its members to ”pass” a LAW without ever actually voting on the bill. Are they mad? Can We the People tolerate this insanity? What kind of America will we leave our children?
Our leaders know We the People do not want this bill. Nonetheless, they insist upon passing this bill — even if they have to tear up the Constitution. And then they have the nerve to tell us they are doing this for us.
If Congress “passes” a LAW and blatantly disregards the constitutional procedure for passing a LAW, what should we do? Each of us is going to have to decide just exactly that.
- Will we obey this unconstitutional LAW?
- If our fellow citizens disobey this unconstitutional LAW, will we support their prosecution and their punishment for disobeying this unconstitutional LAW? Some of us will sit on juries. Will we vote to convict the people who disobey this unconstitutional LAW? When our leaders refuse to abide by their oath to obey the Constititution, are we willing to put our neighbors in jail for disobeying an unconstitutional LAW ?
- Will we pay the additional taxes required by this unconstitutional LAW? Congress wants our money NOW, but we will get nothing for this money until after the next presidential election.
It would appear that our Liberal Democrat neighbors will have no trouble throwing us in jail. Consider the following excerpt from a Newsweek blog. Here is how they rationalize their misconduct.
Here’s how: Rep. Louise Slaughter is chair of the House Rules committee, and as such, figured out that the House could momentarily change its rules to say that the House doesn’t need to pass the Senate bill since both bills are pretty similar anyway (in that they’re about the same subject). That way, Democratic members reticent about voting for the Senate bill technically wouldn’t have to be on record voting for it. They would just have to vote not to stop it from passing. It’s effectively a shift from active passage of the bill to passive. Then, after this rule passed, the Senate bill would go straight to the president, he would sign it, and then both chambers would start working on a few fixes through reconciliation.
Distasteful, yes, but it’s actually feasible. Parliamentary bodies in other countries pull moves like this, and it sometimes works. Minority Whip Eric Cantor even admitted that it was doable, albeit highly unpalatable. As for Slaughter, she seemed downright giddy this afternoon that such a maneuver wasn’t just possible, but might actually be what it comes down to. (from here)
We will be like other countries. How nice! We have a Constitution that says exactly how we are suppose to pass a LAW, but it is more important to be like other countries.
By the way, what does Cantor think?
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. (from here)
The Liberals don’t care about the ethics. All they care about is “winning.” They would substitute the rule of LAW with the rule of MEN. For the sake of a few “free” baubles and trinkets, they would sell themselves and the rest of us into tyranny and slavery.
