House may pass healthcare reform bill without voting on it Part 2
When I first heard about– and wrote about— the possibility that the House would pass the healthcare reform bill without even voting on it I was skeptical. I was skeptical about the source, the rumor, and the reality that this could possibly be true. But with Nancy Pelosi’s admission that the “Slaughter solution” is one of about four different options that the House is considering in order to pass healthcare reform, it is time to revisit this issue.
The “Slaughter solution” goes something like this: the president would have to sign into law the Senate version of the bill, the House would vote on “fixes” to the bill and if these “fixes” passed the House, it would “deem” the Senate bill passed, the Senate would then have to reconcile the House “fixes” and incorporate them in the final bill, all based on a promise that they would do so. This would allow the House Democrats who are in tough re-election campaigns to claim that they never voted for the unpopular Senate bill and provide them cover in case the Senate did not pass their “fixes,” allowing the Senate bill to be the final version of the bill.
According to Nancy Pelosi, this is an attractive option because it will protect House members politically who are unwilling to support the bill publically, claiming that it is ” more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know.” In other words, if they pass the bill she is hoping that people aren’t paying attention to HOW they passed it, they just will know that the bill passed. She is hoping that people are not paying attention to their actions. She continues by saying she also likes this option, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”
That should tell us all that we need to know not only about the Senate bill’s popularity and flaws, but also about the mindset of the house leadership. She knows that this bill is unpopular, she knows that the American people are opposed to the bill, yet she is willing to stoop to this level to pass it. And she thinks that the American people are so stupid that once the bill passes and is law that we will not realize that by not voting directly for or against this bill that they actually voted for it. I can’t even begin to describe how obnoxious and arrogant I find the Speaker’s position on this issue and her disdain for the intelligence of the American people.
Since it has become public knowledge about this nefarious plot to pass healthcare reform without voting on it, the question has been raised about whether this is constitutional or not. On the surface it would seem that there is no way that this can be constitutional. This question is based on Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution, which states that the “Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays.” But that language follows the language that describes the process for overriding a presidential veto, does this apply to legislation that is sent to the president in the first place, or just to legislation that has already been vetoed by the president? I am not sure. And then there is Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution which states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
It is based on this section that I have never questioned the constitutionality of using reconciliation to pass healthcare reform, even though I disagree with the notion. If the houses have the means to determine their own rules, the Senate must have the right to determine how many votes it takes to pass legislation. Does this not give the House the right to pass a bill without voting on it?
So while the constitutionality of this maneuver is up in the air– it may or may not be constitutional– there is one thing that we know for sure; this is an unscrupulous, insidious, un-American frontal assault on what a representative republic is supposed to stand for and the American people should not stand for it.
America's Watchtower 
They have made a naked act of aggression on our wallets and freedom to boot.
LikeLike
I see your point about the constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution, but I am not sure I agree with it. I can not bring myself to the point that I think it may be constitutional. At any rate, it is a full frontal assault on the American way of governing, as you have already mentioned. There is no way this should be tolerated.
LikeLike
I honestly am not sure about the constitutionality of this, it certainly seems as though it is unconstitutional. But it should never be tolerated, this is going way over the line. They can’t get the votes, so they don’t vote on it? How is this American?
LikeLike
The House GOP would be well within their rights to get up and walk out of there should the Dems go through with this blatant act of arrogant fascism.
LikeLike
I think that if they did that, the House would still have a quorum and then they would be able to vote on the bill. And probably pass it. Although that would certainly be interesting to see.
LikeLike
We are living in amazing days! Wow!
LikeLike
Scary days, indeed. Think about the precedent this will set for ALL legislation in the future by BOTH parties!
LikeLike
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
In my opinion, it can’t be more clear. The house must pass that senate bill or Obama cannot sign it into law.
LikeLike
I hope that you are right, perhaps I am trying to keep from being too optimistic on the chances of a constitutional challenge.
LikeLike
I find it laughable the way the Dems have painted themselves into such a corner.
They have so screwed this thing up and with a majority mind you!
From the very start when they were supposed to get this thing passed before summer recess it has continued to get worse and worse for them.
And now they tell us they must pass it in order to see what is in it?
And in order to pass it they will not vote on it?
They are so stuck I don’t see how they are going to get out of it.
They are going to be forced to “deem” it passed and I for one hope that if it is going to become law this is the way they do it.
Who is a democrat today and is not embarrassed by what is taking place?
This stunt will seal their fate in November
Oh and expect a million law suits on the constitutionality of this bill if it is signed into law under these conditions.
It may even lead to the constitutionality of the POTUS himself.
LikeLike
It does appear as if the constitutional challenges are lining up, I am glad to see that there are people who are not going to roll over once this bill is passed.
I never did a post on Pelosi’s comment about how they have to pass the bill so that the American people can see what is in it, ho stupid is that comment? This has been a circus from the get go, Democrats should have been able to pass this bill months ago, they had a super majority, but they bit off more than they could chew and they will pay the price.
I am with you, if this bill passes, I hope it passes without a vote becuase that would expose the Democtrat more than anything else that they could possibly do.
LikeLike
Even if it is passed, a conservative majority next Fall can repeal it. We just need to make sure we have a conservative majority.
Speaking of conservatives, here in Florida we have a guy named Bob Smith, a former NH Senator running for the Senate against Gov. Crist and Mark Rubio, the golden boy of the Republican party here. What can you tell me about Smith? He talks a good conservative line. Is he for real??? What’s your experience with him up there in the People’s Republic of New England?
LikeLike
A majority in the fall cannot repeal what has been signed into law by the President.
Unless of course Congress circumvents the constitution and “deem” the President signed a repeal of the health care bill by virtue of a “Mandate” of the people when the House and Senate Democrats lose 200 seats in one election.
At that point we can all just ignore the bill outright.
LikeLike
The congress would have to lose enough seats to gain support for a bill that would repeal this legislation, but the president would veot it meaning that congress would actually need to lose two thirds of its majority in order to over-ride the veto. This is highly unlikely, but we have one thing going for us. The “benefits” do not go into effect for four years while we begin paying for it right away. Perhaps over the next two elections we can gain enough in the house and senate to overturn it. BUt probably not this year.
LikeLike
Wow! I didn’t know Bob Smith was running for Senate in Florida. I wish that I could give you more insight about him, but he was here before I gained a real interest in politics. I can tell you that he was elected to the Senate twice while New Hampshire was more right leaning than it has been in recent years, and I can tell you that he ran for president in 2000. Once he left the race he endorsed George Bush over John McCain. He was also considered the most conservative senator in the Northeast. He lost to John Sununu in the Republican primary in 2002. John Sununu was a Senator that I wish we still had here in New Hampshire. I wish I could tell you more.
LikeLike
I fear we may have front row seats to the final shredding of the Constitution.
LikeLike
I share your concerns, but it looks like there is going to be quite a few challenges to this if it passes. We can still hope for the best, but think about the precedent that will be set. I was going to write a post on that issue tonight, but I think I will save it for tomorrow. If the government is allowed to get away with this what will they use it for next? Amnesty? This could open the door for more legislation to be passed without a vote by whichever party is in power. It is dangerous and should not be concidered lightly.
LikeLike
There is NO WAY this so called healthcare reform bill (and student loan government takeover) is constitutional. Is impeachment an option? This has got to stop or there will be another revolution.
LikeLike
There is no chance for impeachment while unless there is a HUGE revolt in November.
LikeLike