Sunday, March 14, 2010

Will The Democrats Slaughter The Constitution For Socialized Medicine?

Nancy Pelosi is expressing confidence that the Democrat's Health-care bill will pass. Her confidence may be well founded. The Democrats are contemplating a maneuver that has been dubbed The Slaughter rule. Named after Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), Chair of the House Rules Committee.

See: The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution

Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution may pose a problem for the Democrats, but since the Health-care bill is an “all the marbles” play for them, I think that they would be willing to risk a constitutional chalenge, thinking that if in the off chance the court rules in their favor, they will own the whole of the Republic outright.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
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.

M. Connell explains in the Wall Street Journal Article cited above:

As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

Again, I think that the Democrats may be willing to gamble that the present makeup of the Supreme Court could possibly rule in their favor.

If they lose, its back to the status quo with a loss of a few seats in congress. The voting publics notoriously short memory will help them regain the lost seats in a few election cycles. No real penalty will be paid.

However, if they were to win at the Supreme Court, they will have made everyone in the Republic dependent on them for their health-care.

Lose a little versus win the whole damn enchilada.

(See also: Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional)


  1. Hey Syrah! It's realwest. I have to say that although you are generally right about If they win at the Supreme Court they win the whole enchillada. But you do remember what Mr.Chief Justice Roberts said about President Obama coming down on the Supreme Court in his SOTU speech, while the Justices were, by common rule and courtesy, not allowed to respond, right? And that Alito mouthed the words "that's not true" after Obama spoke? That even - perhaps especially Ms. Justice Sotomayor looked pissed off? The Dems odds of winning this at the SCOTUS Level are nearly nil - on the law not just as payback.
    But when you said "If they lose, its back to the status quo with a loss of a few seats in congress. The voting publics notoriously short memory will help them regain the lost seats in a few election cycles. No real penalty will be paid." I'm afraid you're mistaken on this bill, the Health Insurance Refrom and Student Loan Bill. If they pass it, almost every American fortunate enough to have a job which requires them to pay taxes will pay higher taxes; Senior Citizens (who surprisingly voted almost 2-1 for Obama during the election are AGAINST THIS BILL, by a ratio of 3-1; NPR said that the Seniors have been scared off by the "Nasty Republican Fear Mongers" but those of us who depend on Medicare (the poor* elderly and Disabled) KNOW cause OBAMA HAS SAID SO IN PUBLIC SEVERAL TIMES, that Medicare cuts will be $500 Billion over 10 years, that the result will be fewer services provided and higher premius charged for Medicare and ALL of that will START NOW; benefits of the Health Care Insurance and Student Loan Bill don't start for another FOUR years.
    No, voters will most assuredly NOT forget.

    *-of course we're poor, otherwise we wouldn't have that shitty government run Medicare healthcare plan in the first place!

  2. I hope you are right RW.

    I can be a bit of a cynic.

    I may spend too much of my time around Seattle leftists.

  3. And if they do it with healthcare, cap and trade and card check will follow too fast.


By submitting your comments, you agree that you alone are responsible for their content. I reserve the right to remove comments I deem offensive or inappropriate, at my discretion.

Threatening, abusive and illegal comments may be reported to the proper authorities. Don't be stupid. If the CIA, FBI or the Secret Service knocks on my door and asks questions about you, I will rat you out in seconds. (Sooner if I call them about you.)

Comments made below will be subject to public viewing.

Comments are subject to moderation.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are people out there in the wilds of the Internet that think it cute to post racist and Nazi garbage on other peoples websites. Some of these thugs are even enabled by people who should know better. In my opinion, both the thugs and their enablers are worse than spammers.

I have recently made enemies with a particular group of these people who have done just that on another website. I don't intend to make it easy for them to do that to me.

In light of that, comment moderation will be used here on this humble and very obscure little blog.

I will check in several times each day to approve appropriate comments.

For the most part, I will allow just about any type of comment except for spam and Kilgorian excrement.