Will a 1998 Supreme Court declaration stop the Slaughter solution on healthcare reform?
I have been one who has been leery as to the case being made that the Slaughter solution– otherwise known as deem and pass– for passing healthcare reform without a vote is unconstitutional. The basis of my skepticism is in the location of the wording that is being sited as the means for a consitutional challenge.
In Article 1, Section 7 the constitution states,”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.” But it follows language that lays out the process for overturning a presidential veto. I was of the belief that a narrow interpretation of the constitution would uphold the “deem and pass” process as Section 1 Section 5 of the constitution grants both houses the right to make up their own rules for procedures.
It appears as though I might have been just a little too wary of the situation, for it appears in a 1998 declaration the Supreme Court has already stated that the two houses must approve the same exact text before a bill can become law. Writing for the majority in the 1998 declaration, Justice John Paul Stevens said the constitution explicitly requires that the House and Senate approve the exact same text.
However, I cannot shake this feeling that the American people are about to get royally screwed because the Supreme Court could still rule that the two houses approved the same language if the Senate agrees to the “fixes” even though neither house actually voted on the other’s bill. The Supreme Court could rule that the House has the right to “deem” a bill passed because under Article 1, Section 5 the House has the right to make this rule.
I honestly don’t know what to expect, hell I am waffling on this issue even as I write about it. This whole idea that the House could possibly get away with passing a bill they do not vote on has me badly shaken; it goes against everything that I thought America stood for. One second I think that the Supreme Court will have to rule against the Slaughter solution, and the other second I feel as if they may uphold it. But the bottom line is, there needs to be a constitutional challenge to this procedure. It is too important of an issue to let it pass without challenge. I hope that the Supreme Court will rule against this, it is obviously not what the founders had intentioned and frankly it is un-American and is counter to the ideals that America was founded on. I just have a very bad feeling about this that I cannot shake, I hope the Supreme Court proves me wrong, I will gladly admit my error.
America's Watchtower 
The “Slaughter Rule” is far to deep in the grass for me to speculate on. I think its just a way for representatives to vote for something and then say they didn’t–frankly that won’t work on a bill such as this that the eyes of the nation are on. I also think the court should rule on this, but doubt they will ever consider taking it up.
LikeLike
That is all this is, they are going to vote on a bill by not voting on the bill so they can tell their constituents they didn’t vote on a bill they voted on. That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? 🙂
LikeLike
As for the Supreme Court taking up this issue, I am not so sure they will, at least not until it has worked it’s way through the lower courts. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is much of a precedent for them to take up an issue before it exhausts the lower courts. I think the 2000 presidential election fiasco between Bush and Gore would be the exception.
Concerning the use of the “deem and pass” rule, I still find myself wondering how they can think the American people will not know what they have done. Do they really think we are all so ignorant as to not see what they are up to?
LikeLike
I am not sure about that Larry, I think if it is considered a constitutional crisis they can take it up. I think that the Supreme Court ruled very quickly on many of FDR’s New Deal policies prompting him to try to stack the court in his favor.
LikeLike
Agreed, it’s very ballsy of the Dems to use this deem and pass move. November should be interesting…
LikeLike
It is ballsy on their part, do they think that we will just forget this come November?
LikeLike
The use of the Slaughter rule in this case is a violation of the constitution in fact and just as importantly in perception.
By taking this course Congress is endangering civil stability. I for one think Obama knows it and his handlers want it so.
What is to stop them from writing a bill in which they state all people living in the USA are hereby made whole and legal citizens of the USA. Then through a reconciliation bill striking the language “hereby made whole and legal” voting on the reconciliation bill but “deeming” the original bill thus passed.
They sign into law the original bill and it language not the reconciliation bill.
That is exactly what is happening before our very eyes with this healthcare bill.
This is treason and every Politician that votes on reconciliation is deserving of impeachment and that includes the President.
They have all together violated their oath of office and thereby bring a constitutional crisis to the land! This cannot stand!
If this passes before the eyes of America it will spark the beginning of a revolution. A revolution not of weapons of violence but of weapons of votes, cash and the lack thereof in tax receipts.
They will find out what it is like to try and govern a wholly disgruntled populous.
LikeLike
Very well said Rick! I just wish that it didn’t take something as radical as the Slaughter solution to make the majority of the American people see this. The warning signs were there before the election but the people and the press ignored them while those of us that tried to bring it to the attention of the people were called racists and radicals. We are now seeing who the true radicals are. I just hoe that it isn’t too late.
LikeLike