Slaughter House Rule looms

1st, Erick Erickson at RedState.com is reporting on Twitter that Rush Limbaugh has given out the Capitol switchboard number for only the 2nd time in his broadcasting history: 202-224-3121. Make your calls. The situation is urgent.

slaughter, abortion.jpg2nd, jumping ahead a little, Michelle Malkin is reporting the GOP "will announce this morning a plan to force a vote this week on a resolution that would require the Senate health care bill to be brought to an actual up-or-down vote.... If passed by the House, the resolution would prohibit Speaker Pelosi from implementing the 'Slaughter Solution,' the scheme by which House Democratic leaders are seeking to 'deem' the Senate bill as passed without an actual vote in the House."

Backing up, for a detailed explanation of pro-abort Democrat Louise Slaughter's proposed end run around an outright vote in the House on the Senate's healthcare bill, read this Wall Street Journal piece today....

Read an easier to follow explanation at McClatchydc.com.

There are differing opinions whether this move would be constitutional. According to CNSNews.com...

The question of constitutionality of the so-called Slaughter Solution stems from the plain language of Article I, Section VII of the Constitution, which states that all bills must pass Congress via a vote in both chambers that is recorded in their journals....

Radio host, Landmark Legal Foundation President, and former Justice Dept. Chief of Staff Mark Levin said that the Slaughter Solution was a "blatant violation" of the Constitution on his radio program on March 11.

"I can't think of a more blatant violation of the United States Constitution than this," said Levin. "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 law by fiat, which would mean government by fiat."


Comments:

Government inaction at its bureaucratic finest. The Legislature is spending all this time debating on how to run itself. It's like, let's have a vote to decide whether or not to vote on moving the next vote forward.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 16, 2010 1:35 PM


Cranky,

Remember how President Barack Obama marked his 100th day in office by telling Americans that “we’ve begun the work of remaking America.”

There goes the Constitution....

Posted by: Janet at March 16, 2010 2:11 PM


Talk about trying to pull out every trick in the book. I guess when you don't mind depriving a certain class of persons of life (14th Amendment), then how important could it be to pass legislation by both blocs of Congress (Art. I, Sec. VII)?

Posted by: Alex at March 16, 2010 2:14 PM


There goes the Constitution....

I think that happened in the wake of Gore v. Bush (2000)

But seriously, how many times does Healthcare Reform have to pass before it's 'legitimate.' It passed the House in November, and the Senate in December under the standard math. Everything else is just bureaucratic baloney.

Hey, the Dems bent over for the Patriot Act and the Iraq invasion. The GOP is going to have to bend a little bit on this one before it can win back seats this fall.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 16, 2010 2:16 PM


I can't help thinking about slaughtered babies whenever this woman's name comes up.

Posted by: Janet at March 16, 2010 2:19 PM


But seriously, how many times does Healthcare Reform have to pass before it's 'legitimate.' It passed the House in November, and the Senate in December under the standard math. Everything else is just bureaucratic baloney.
Posted by: Dhalgren at March 16, 2010 2:16 PM

Are you kidding? They were totally different bills. How many times does it have to pass both branches of Congress? How about ONCE!

And as for your comment about Gore v. Bush, that always makes me laugh. Yes, heaven forbid the Constitution was actually followed and Bush won the electoral votes needed. The Democrats only want the Constitution followed when it benefits them.

Posted by: Kristen at March 16, 2010 2:25 PM


Dhalgren,

Reform just for reform's sake is not what we need. This bill is excessive and needs to be scrapped. If Obama would go on TV and talk intelligently about the details of the bill for even one hour he might get somewhere on this, but I seriously doubt he or any of the leaders has a clue what's in the bill or he would have done this already. It would take a four night mini-series to explain it all. Imagine the nightmare the bill would be to actually put it into practice. I don't think people are considering how difficult it will be.

Posted by: Janet at March 16, 2010 2:32 PM


"But seriously, how many times does Healthcare Reform have to pass before it's 'legitimate.' It passed the House in November, and the Senate in December under the standard math. Everything else is just bureaucratic baloney."

Twice, Dhalgren. Those are two different bills. You're on a pro-life message board, so perhaps you'll permit me to point out that the pro-abortion language has only passed one arm of Congress.

Posted by: Alex at March 16, 2010 2:32 PM


Kristen, please. The Republicans are bullies. They have been stomping on the constitution since Senator Joe McCarthy.

Gore v. Bush was the most perverse SP ruling of all time. They ruled that any recount in Florida was unconstitutional because it would cause 'irreparable harm' to the process. And to make it even more perverse, the majority opinion declared the ruling as a one-time exception, never to be referenced again or used as prescient.

They were totally different bills.

Oh they had a different number of pages, but all members understood it was the same reform package, with the same estimated price tag, and was in-effect the same vote.

Sure, I'd like to see the Democrats get the bill passed AGAIN in both houses with simple majorities just to shut-up the GOP. But while we wait for these political games to play out, let's educate ourselves about the self executing parliamentary procedure (because even I have never heard of it). The examples in which it has been used are very very interesting.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/self_executing.pdf

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 16, 2010 2:41 PM


Wow Dhalgren, That's quite an ignorant statement, even by your standards. The Patriot Act was passed by Constitutional standards, ie, the House and Senate voted on record to pass identical bills. The House version of health care and the Senate version of healthcare were not identical. Until the Senate passes the identical, unamended House version, the House passes an identical, unamended Senate version, or both pass a new, conference-committee version of the health care bill, there is no health care legislation that can legally go to the President for signing.

Whether or not the individual mandate and other aspects of the bill are Constitutional are a whole separate question, and seem to be the point of contention you have with the Patriot Act. But requiring both the House and Senate pass identical bills before going to the President is not some bureaucratic baloney. If this requirement was not in the Constitution, the President could simply cherry pick certain items from each version of a bill that are favored, ignoring the ones that he didn't like. How would have you liked your personal boogey-man, GWB, to have had that power when we was in office?

Take a Civics 101 course before you vote again. Seriously. It's your responsibility as a citizen to know how the government functions.

Posted by: Michael at March 16, 2010 2:43 PM


@Dhalgren: You really don't understand how the US actually functions, do you? Yesterday you were trying to argue that the Hyde budget constraint is a law that applies forever to every single thing that Congress passes, and today you're saying that it doesn't matter if the House and the Senate pass the same bill so long as everyone thinks it's pretty similar! I'm honestly curious now: are you not an American?

Posted by: Keli Hu at March 16, 2010 2:51 PM


"..all members understood it was the same reform package, with the same estimated price tag, and was in-effect the same vote..."
----------------------------------------------

Oh really? Ever heard of the Stupak Amendment?

Unless you've been living under a rock somewhere THIS is where the basic difference lies...


Posted by: RSD at March 16, 2010 2:52 PM


Article 1 Section 7 does not prescribe anything more than the very basics of passing a bill out of congress to the President's desk. The Constitution does state that the procedural rules will be determined by each house.

So...

While I agree with you that the self-executing rule stinks, there is nothing there to support the argument that the self-executing rule is unconstitutional.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 16, 2010 2:56 PM


Oh they had a different number of pages, but all members understood it was the same reform package, with the same estimated price tag, and was in-effect the same vote.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 16, 2010 2:41 PM

Lets see, one had the abortion language, one didn't. One had a government option, one didn't. One was financed by taxing the wealthy, one was financed by an excise tax on high cost insurance plans. Yep, sounds like the same package to me.

Posted by: Kristen at March 16, 2010 3:00 PM


Dhalgren,

Jill links to CNSN new.com which quotes Mark Levin, Constitutional lawyer, and his take on the Slaughter rule.

To view FOX - Cavuto's full interview of Levin, see:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dai9aHxpSsE&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Janet at March 16, 2010 3:02 PM


Sorry about the bad link at 3:02 PM.

Try this.

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/03/great-one-mark-levin-talks-to-cavuto.html

Posted by: Janet at March 16, 2010 3:07 PM


Dhalgren,

What do you think of Democrats who, when realizing they might lose Florida and the election, called people trying to convince them they hadn't voted correctly? You remember those bunch of whiners and crybabies protesting that they had been "tricked" into voting for the wrong candidate. I know, its hard to imagine there are people so ready to admit they are too stupid to read a ballot and vote correctly, but there they were out on the street announcing it. Oh and big surprise, there's Jesse Jackson leading the charge!
Why, a congressman, a Democrat of course, even said constituents were calling and crying to him about their misreading of the ballot.
Just what we all do when we realize we didn't vote correctly, we call our congressperson and cry.
My elderly mother voted in Florida and said you had to be a blithering idiot not to be able to read the ballot.

Gee, this ballot was designed by a Democrat, newspapers had printed copies of the ballots before the election, and there are poll workers who will happily assist you. There's also something called taking the responsibility to make certain you voted correctly before casting your ballot. What a novel concept.

Some questionable shenanigans by Democrats here, hoping to change election results? Nahhhhh.

Posted by: Mary at March 16, 2010 3:35 PM



Is there no end to Obama's narcissism? Now he is theatening not to campaign for Democrats who vote "no" on his health reform debacle. Uhh, Mr.President, that's just the incentive they need to vote "no"!! May we gently remind you sir that candidates you campaign for lose? Can we say Corzine, Deeds, and Coakley? When you campaigned for Harry Reid his poll numbers dropped even further!

Posted by: Mary at March 16, 2010 3:41 PM


"Now he is theatening not to campaign for Democrats who vote "no" on his health reform debacle.."
----------------------
Yeah, Mary..it's as if Obama really believes his annointed presence helps their campaign...

Posted by: RSD at March 16, 2010 3:47 PM


"And as for your comment about Gore v. Bush, that always makes me laugh. Yes, heaven forbid the Constitution was actually followed and Bush won the electoral votes needed. The Democrats only want the Constitution followed when it benefits them."

Exactly. Bush wasn't even the first president to win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote, he was the third.

"The Republicans are bullies. They have been stomping on the constitution since Senator Joe McCarthy."

Hon, if you want to claim you hate Republicans because of ancient history, you're opening up a huge can of worms. They're not the ones who created the Ku Klux Klan and currently have a former KKK member in elected office.

Posted by: Marauder at March 16, 2010 3:55 PM


Another thing Marauder,

It wasn't the Republicans who established Jim Crow segregation in the south. George "segregation forever" Wallace wasn't Republican and neither was police chief Bull Connor who was notorious for his brutality to black civil rights workers. Gee Dhalgren, want to guess what party these fine folks belonged to?

Oh, and let's not forget Democrat icon FDR who put American citizens of color in concentration camps, after confiscating their property and businesses, and who refused to give his moral authority to anti lynching legislation in a majority Democrat congress that wouldn't pass it.

Dhalgren, do you really want to go there?

Posted by: Mary at March 16, 2010 4:02 PM


yes, but unlike Senator Thurmond, Senator Byrd has repented, nd will probably apologize until the day he dies.

Meanwhile -

Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign in the town where the KK was founded - an intentional, political move to rally southern whites.

And George W. Bush and Dick Cheney pretty much destroyed this nation. Two wars. Giant tax cuts. Domestic spying. Outing a CIA agent. Rewarding failure. Punishing whistleblowers. And probably the biggest scandal of them all - politicizing the Department of Justice and even firing US Attorneys who didn't tow the line as set by the WHite House.

As the years go by, the attorney firing scandal (and the millions of emails associated with it) will be studied by historians and take on larger significance as we make more sense of it.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 16, 2010 4:09 PM


Exactly. Bush wasn't even the first president to win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote, he was the third.

Posted by: Marauder at March 16, 2010 3:55 PM

Right! And everyone thought it would work the other way. That Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win electorally, so much so that Bush was asked in an interview directly what he would do if that was the case. His answer was that was the way the process worked and he had no problem abiding by it.

Posted by: Kristen at March 16, 2010 4:29 PM


Dhalgren,

Of course Byrd repented. I wonder about his "white n-----" slip on national TV though. I understand the congressional black caucus wasn't too pleased but said nothing. Byrd was very powerful and had never been a man to tolerate black folk getting just a little too uppity.

Launched his campaign in the town the KKK was founded? Oh please. So when someone campaigns in Birmingham Alabama that means they support bombing black churches and segregation, right?

Thank Democrat LBJ for the destruction the Vietnam War reaped on this country, which also included domestic spying and divisiveness.

Dahlgren, I just know you want to thank Republicans for the passage of civil and voting rights legislation in 1964 and 1965. Democrats were too busy filibustering to give LBJ much help.

Posted by: Mary at March 16, 2010 4:38 PM


Louise Slaughter claimed she had a constituent who claimed she had to wear her dead sister's teeth. I laughed so hard I cried. I thought of that cartoon "Marmaduke" and his huge smile while his owner was looking for his dentures.

So pray tell, how did this woman survive until her sister was dispatched to the next world and she could take her dentures?

Hey Louise, don't feel bad, I read that years ago many people used the teeth of the dead as dentures, even George Washington. Just look at it as recycling.

Posted by: Mary at March 16, 2010 6:48 PM


Strom Thurmond was a segregationist. While that's not a good thing, there's a difference between "white kids and black kids should go to different schools" and "Hey, everyone! Klan sign-up sheet is over here!"

"Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign in the town where the KK was founded - an intentional, political move to rally southern whites."

Yep, I'm SO sure that was why.

Reagan knew that the job of any elected official in America was to uphold the Constitution. That's why he publically voiced his disapproval of the Briggs Initiative, which would have gotten gay teachers and their supporters automatically fired in California. If Reagan was so politically devious in his attempts to get supporters, why did he do something that a lot of his supporters disapproved of? Because the Briggs Initiative was unconstitutional and wrong, that's why.

I'm sure you can name various Republicans who did wrong things; my point was that any member of a political party whose members started the Ku Klux Klan is in a huge glass house when they say, "Republicans are horrible, look at Joe McCarthy!" Oh, those evil Republicans. How dare they end slavery and appoint the first female Supreme Court justice!

Posted by: Marauder at March 16, 2010 7:45 PM


If the slaughterhouse rule is used and IF this bill is signed into law then we will have a great reason to have a federal judge put a stay on implementing any part of this monstrosity till the SCOTUS can rule on it.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 16, 2010 10:38 PM


If this bill were to be signed into law there will be hell to pay and the Democrats who think this monstrosity will EVER go away are just wrong. This bill, if passed, will consume our money, grow the government and consume private health insurance, consume the courts and consume the this nation and it's citizens until every letter of this bill is repealed. So much for a laser like focus on jobs.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 17, 2010 12:34 AM


I'm with you on this. I want the bill to die. It doesn't give uninsured people like me what we need - the ability to by medicare at cost. And it is full of pork.

But I do admit, I like watching the Right Wingers squirm and cry foul when there is no foul to be found in the congressional procedures.

Posted by: Dhalgren at March 18, 2010 7:55 AM


Dhalgren,

Of course there is no foul in open bribery, backroom deals, and AF One rides to "persuade" congresspeople and senators.

If they have the votes why not just vote on the bill? If they don't, call it a day, respect the will of the American people, who oppose this bill, and start over.

Posted by: Mary at March 18, 2010 9:09 AM


If the slaughterhouse rule is used and IF this bill is signed into law then we will have a great reason to have a federal judge put a stay on implementing any part of this monstrosity till the SCOTUS can rule on it.
Posted by: truthseeker at March 16, 2010 10:38 PM

I heard last night that Mark Levin and the Heritage Foundation have just such a brief in the ready and will submit it he minute this passes, if it passes

Posted by: truthseeker at March 19, 2010 10:17 AM