The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.
Pence talks of the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of this move by Pelosi. Similarly, at Secondhand Smoke blog, Wesley J. Smith talks about the actual Constitutional Crisis:
…..But you can’t pass an internal procedural rule that effectively revokes the Constitutional requirement of what must actually happen for a bill to pass into law! In order to become law, the Constitution requires a bill to pass both houses in identical form, and then either be signed into law by the president, or made law over a presidential veto.
If this law is “deemed” passed via the Slaughter Solution instead of being actually voted and passed, and then signed by Obama, what might happen?
If President Obama signs an Obamacare bill that was not actually voted on in the House of Representatives, it will unleash a bitter constitutional crisis of the kind I haven’t seen in my 60 year-+ lifetime. There will be years of intense litigation. Tremendous uncertainty as to whether it is actually law will roil the economy and divide the country. People will refuse to pay the taxes required in the “statute” on the basis that there is no law. Regulators will be sued. Vitriol of the kind not seen since the session crisis of 1861 will take over our politics, sowing even deeper societal divisions than already exist. At the end of the day, I believe, Obamacare will be declared null and void because it never actually have passed both houses of Congress.
But if that’s the best case, what’s the worst case?:
The worst case scenario is that the maneuver is somehow approved by the Supreme Court. Then, we will have lost our constitutional republic, because Congress will no longer have to pass bills. Just pass internal rules. And liberals who support Obamacare fervently enough to believe this expedient is justified, should understand clearly that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
EXACTLY — what is to stop Obama/Pelosi/Reid from “deeming” the next election null and void, or “deeming” cap and tax as law of the land? I could cite almost any example.
Our Founders intended that our Republic have a representative government. When ONE political party can “deem” takeover of 1/6 of our economy in something so personal as healthcare, we are no longer the America of our founders, but the America sought out by statists, Marxists, and tyrannical dictators.
That is exactly what a Constitutional crisis looks like.
Of course, the Democratic talking points that came out yesterday tried to convince us that “deeming” or the “Slaughter Solution” has been used before? Well, it has, BUT never has it been used to CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF A BILL’S PASSAGE and has been used traditionally used for amendments to a bill and resolutions (not a binding bill). From DougRossat Journal:
Hoyer attempted to deflect criticism by citing cases where Republicans used a “self-executing” rule.
Oh, the Republicans used it, right? Well, Stenky, could we please have the list of bills and laws passed using this method? There aren’t any. It’s been used to add and remove amendments, not pass entire bills without a vote. And certainly not for a giant, new and unaffordable entitlement program. And certainly not one that has zero bipartisan support.
Of course, other than just ignoring her oath to preserve the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi’s (and Louise Slaughter’s) hypocrisy is on full display in this endeavor. Nancy Pelosi and others declared and sued long ago that the “deeming” rule (AKA Slaughter Rule) is unconstitutional:
….Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase. But there was a minor difference between the two chambers’ versions resulting from a clerical error.
Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, citing the difference between the two texts?………(Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Louise Slaughter)
….It’s important to be clear that the issue before the court was whether a minor text correction was sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both chambers of Congress must pass the exact same bill. In this 2005 case, the court ruled the minor correction was acceptable.
The deeming of an entire bill to have been passed without a prior recorded vote goes far beyond a minor text correction, so the constitutional principle clearly would be violated by the Slaughter Solution…….
……If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it’s the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.Of course, there is one major difference between 2005 and 2010. Debt limit increases are routine in Congress and have been for decades. But to place the American private health care system under government control — effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy — that has never been done before.
“Deeming” a bill passed is unconstitutional and should not be considered. If this Obamacare bill is passed in that manner, Obama should tear up the bill when it reaches his desk.
Filed under: Abortion, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Collectivism, Communism, Economy, Entitlements, History, Liberalism, Nutroots, Obama corruption, Politics, Progressives Ain't, Socialism, Socialized Healthcare, Taxes, Tea Party, Welfare | Tagged: anti-American, Constitution, Constitutional Crisis, debt ceiling, Economy, healthcare, healthcare bill, Henry Waxman, Louise Slaughter, Marxist, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, reconcilation, Republicans, Slaughter Solution, Statist |