GOP attempting to force the vote in attempt to stop Slaughter solution

[Taco John]

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/87...ghter-solution

[Direckshun]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Go GOP, go! Force that ****ing vote.

[Taco John]

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?p...hAa__DKM&pos=9

[Taco John]

Pelosi doesn't sound so convincing.

[patteeu]

I'm no expert on House rules, but I don't think the GOP can really force anything.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm no expert on House rules, but I don't think the GOP can really force anything.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by orange

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]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

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]

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 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 prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) 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]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

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/p...ct-of-columbia

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by orange

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

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/htm...2_0919_ZO.html