PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues GOP attempting to force the vote in attempt to stop Slaughter solution


Taco John
03-16-2010, 03:52 PM
GOP to try to stop 'Slaughter solution'
By Molly K. Hooper - 03/16/10 12:07 PM ET


House GOP leaders will try to force the House to vote on the Senate’s healthcare bill.

Rep. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.), who defected from the Democratic Party last December out of frustration on healthcare, will offer a resolution barring Democratic leaders from using the so-called “Slaughter solution.”

According to GOP aides, the resolution would require the House to hold an up-or-down vote on the Senate healthcare bill.

Democrats are considering the use of a self-executing rule to approve the Senate’s healthcare bill. Under the procedure, the House would “deem” the Senate bill passed when it votes on a package of changes to that legislation.

The package of changes then will be voted on by the Senate under budget reconciliation rules, which prevent Republicans from mounting a filibuster.

The House Rules Committee on Tuesday issued a memo defending the tactic as frequently used, including by Republicans. The GOP has argued it is deceptive and has not been used on legislation of this magnitude.


Republicans refer to the tactic as the "Slaugher solution" because Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, which would draft the self-executing rule.


GOP aides say their leaders would look to force a vote “this week” on the resolution barring use of the self-executing rule on healthcare.

Democrats are aiming for a vote on the package by this weekend, but it is unclear when it will come to the floor.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/87047-gop-to-try-to-stop-slaughter-solution

Direckshun
03-16-2010, 03:58 PM
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Go GOP, go! Force that fucking vote.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 04:01 PM
Pelosi Says Democrats to Have Votes for Health Bill

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, still shoring up support for legislation to overhaul the U.S. health- care system, vowed that Democrats will be ready to pass the bill when the time comes.

“When we bring the bill to the floor, we will have the votes,” Pelosi told reporters yesterday. Leaders plan for the House to vote later this week, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters today.

Representative John Larson of Connecticut, chairman of the House Democratic caucus, agreed that the leadership will get enough votes, although he said, there’s “tremendous anticipation and certainly anxiety” among lawmakers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9LVhAa__DKM&pos=9

Taco John
03-16-2010, 04:02 PM
Pelosi doesn't sound so convincing.

patteeu
03-16-2010, 04:02 PM
I'm no expert on House rules, but I don't think the GOP can really force anything.

Taco John
03-16-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm no expert on House rules, but I don't think the GOP can really force anything.

No, but it would be really poor politics for the Dems to strike this down, and then go ahead with the Slaughter solution after Obama's been rallying for an "up or down" vote.

orange
03-16-2010, 04:47 PM
I'm no expert on House rules, but I don't think the GOP can really force anything.

Yes.

No, but it would be really poor politics for the Dems to strike this down, and then go ahead with the Slaughter solution after Obama's been rallying for an "up or down" vote.

Parker Griffith's resolution will simply fail. It will never come up for a vote. Getting mentioned on The Hill was it's high point.

Calcountry
03-16-2010, 05:24 PM
Yes.



Parker Griffith's resolution will simply fail. It will never come up for a vote. Getting mentioned on The Hill was it's high point.But, was the constitution passed?

How is it, that the Congress seeks to circumvent, rigorous and precise procedures that have been followed for over 200 years on enacting laws?

"Deemed passed", WTF? There is no law when you start doing shit like that.

orange
03-16-2010, 05:29 PM
But, was the constitution passed?

How is it, that the Congress seeks to circumvent, rigorous and precise procedures that have been followed for over 200 years on enacting laws?

"Deemed passed", WTF? There is no law when you start doing shit like that.

“Self-Executing” Rules Reported by the House Committee on Rules
Walter J. Oleszek
Government and Finance Division

House Rule X assigns the Committee on Rules jurisdiction over the “order of
business of the House.” The panel’s most noteworthy responsibility is to issue order of
business resolutions; these are usually called “rules,” “special rules,” or, less commonly,
“special orders.” Chamber adoption of these rules accomplishes two main objectives: it
permits the House to take up measures that typically lack a convenient right-of-way to the
floor, and it defines the procedural playing field — for example, time for debate and the
structure of the amendment process — for considering legislation.
The committee’s important scheduling role has meant that congressional scholars
and others have classified rules in various ways. For example, an “open” rule affords any
lawmaker an opportunity to offer amendments to a bill so long as they are in compliance
with the House’s standing rules; a “closed” rule forbids anyone from offering
amendments with an exception sometimes made for amendments recommended by the
committee that reported the measure. Starting about twenty-five years ago, in response
to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long
or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee
began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule.
One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting”
rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete
policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to
be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will
lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed”
provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole.”

Traditional Use.
Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action
in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the
precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), selfexecuting
rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the
[Senate] amendment.” Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are
sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution
as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by
that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is
required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.”
“Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions
correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.

Contemporary Use.
Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving
House-Senate relations. They have also been used in recent years to enact significant
substantive and sometimes controversial propositions. Examples from the Congressional
Record will illustrate:
! On August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that
automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for
consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline
flights of two hours or less duration.
! On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that
incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing
the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute
made in order as original text.
! H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated
into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for
the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its
constitutionality.
! A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic
adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order
as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with
bipartisan support.
! On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by
H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the
intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their
employees an early-out retirement program.
! On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that
a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended,

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Calcountry
03-16-2010, 05:41 PM
The Constitution of the United States

Article 1


Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/glossary.html#CONCUR) with Amendments as on other Bills.
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 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/glossary.html#ADJOURN) prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/glossary.html#CONCUR) of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/glossary.html#ADJOURN)) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


I want you to read the bold portion very closely. What part of DEEMED passed without voting on it don't you understand?

This is a constitutional crises.

orange
03-16-2010, 05:55 PM
What part of DEEMED passed without voting on it don't you understand?


What part of HUNDREDS OF DEEMED BILLS HAVE BEEN PASSED, SIGNED, AND ENFORCED AS LAWS AND NONE HAVE EVER BEEN THROWN OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE DEEMED don't you understand?

One was even brought to the Supreme Court recently - and the argument against it was tossed:

http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 06:39 PM
Getting mentioned on The Hill was it's high point.

I think you're under estimating the play it will get during the campaign season.

RINGLEADER
03-16-2010, 07:01 PM
I don't remember the "demonpass" provision in that old schoolhouse rock Bill song.

The Dems just can't help themselves. They know that once they get their hands into healthcare it's all over.

Still can't explain what happens if there's another recession and the revenue isn't there to pay for it, or what happens when the time comes to enact all the Medicare and doctor fix provisions that they've kicked into later this decade but they'll squeeze enough people to pass it. They won't tell you if we'll get less care, higher taxes or a bigger deficit when revenues prove insufficient and/or expenses higher than anticipated but I'll go way out on a limb and predict all three.

Welcome to Amerika.

SoCalBronco
03-16-2010, 07:08 PM
I'd rather have them use it, so the bill can be DOA in the Courts. It violates Chadha. It's an open and shut issue. It would be great to see it fail on something completely unrelated to the merits.

orange
03-16-2010, 07:14 PM
I'd rather have them use it, so the bill can be DOA in the Courts. It violates Chadha. It's an open and shut issue. It would be great to see it fail on something completely unrelated to the merits.

Yeah, right.

I don't suppose you'ld care to explain. I'm betting it's not open and shut at all - in fact, I'm betting it's a lot of hot air.

Here, maybe this will help: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0462_0919_ZO.html

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 08:20 PM
I don't remember the "demonpass" provision in that old schoolhouse rock Bill song.

The Dems just can't help themselves. They know that once they get their hands into healthcare it's all over.

Still can't explain what happens if there's another recession and the revenue isn't there to pay for it, or what happens when the time comes to enact all the Medicare and doctor fix provisions that they've kicked into later this decade but they'll squeeze enough people to pass it. They won't tell you if we'll get less care, higher taxes or a bigger deficit when revenues prove insufficient and/or expenses higher than anticipated but I'll go way out on a limb and predict all three.

Welcome to Amerika.


Or this—

Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine

Doctors meet with President Obama to discuss Meidcare and health-reform legislation. (AP photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to “deteriorate” and it could be the “final straw” that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.

More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62812

Maybe this is why Obama's also taking over education loans. Perhaps he subsidize the education of doctors. Then they can all make $60 per year like they do in France where it's subsidized there too.

Obama really is about change and transformation.

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 08:34 PM
Then they can all make $60 per year like they do in France where it's subsidized there too.



$60 per year? How much does someone scooping chit make there?

CoMoChief
03-17-2010, 01:12 AM
This bill won't pass, because if they backdoor this thing with the so-called "Slaughter Solution", it will be a supreme court nightmare for BO and the democratic party, as this bill will be challenged in the Supreme Court as "Un-constitutional" and the Supreme Court is not exactly on BO's good side right now after BO slammed members of the SCOTUS in his most recent State of the Union address.

I think BO knows this, that's why he's desperately pushing for an up and down vote, which he can't get. Since he can't get it, he's basically asking the Dem's to jump off a political cliff with him. How are the Dem's going to explain to their constituents that this horrible billed passed without anyone voting on it and more importantly to "try" and save their own ass, how are they going to convince people that "hey, it passed....but I didn't vote for it??? This makes me laugh because either you were for this bill and for Obama/Pelosi/Reid taking extreme loophole backdoor measures to try and sneak this through, or you were against it. If this "Slaughter Solution" goes through, it will be political suicide for the Obama Admin as well as the democratic party. He will not get re-elected, and the next coming elections will be a landslide for the Repub party. It probably will anyway because of the way BO's approval ratings are tanking as well as Congress members, most notably the Dem's approval rankings are tanking. Most American's don't trust govt or anyone in Washington.

This Rah Rah Rah Obama feel good speech is coming to and end......he's showing his true colors and hardcore socialist philosophies to the American people. People are finally now starting to see how full of shit BO is. This HC bill is going to ruin his presidency. His days are numbered IMO. Does HC need reforming? Sure it does. But this "My way or the highway" isn't the way to pass this thing through. BO and dem's WILL NOT listen to other repubs, they will not start from page 1 and think this through. These people aren't doctors, the people that made this bill are lawyers and Union officials.

Not only will this increase the national debt. That's just the beginning, that's the obvious. The cost of this is going to fall onto our children's children's children's children. The Dem's know this but they don't care? Why? Because they will all be dead by the time all of this dumps on us. HC is going to HAVE to be rationalized. There's no way around it. Doctors are going to leave their practice, less people/college students going to med school, less doctors + more and more patients with pre-exsisting conditions means Rationalizing HC 101. Just heard tonight in the bill primary care doctors who send patients to "specialists" will actually get a PAY CUT up to 5-10%. Doesn't actually take into account whether the patients actually "need" to see the specialist, they just look at the numbers. Now how is that going to increase the quality of the care? Doctors are going to be a in moral struggle they don't want to have to deal with when they have to start thinking about their pay, or whether a patient is going to receive the treatment they need. Not to mention the "specialists" will no longer see as many patients as they normally would, making them think why is it worth it when they have to pay for insurance to even practice their profession, they're going to quit eventually. Thus, limiting the amount of quality HC people can receive.

There is NOTHING good at all about this HC bill. The American people know it. BO and Co and the Dem's simply at this point DO NOT CARE. There comes a point when something gets too big to manage (thats what she says) well, government is at that point. They are out of control.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 08:44 AM
$60 per year? How much does someone scooping chit make there?
I meant to put a k after that $60k.