The “major news media” asking uncomfortable questions of the Democrats? No really, April Fool’s Day is still a couple of weeks away.

…… this logic is known as the “I’m-going-to-lift-my-left-leg-and-now-I’m-going-to-lift-my-right-leg” Principle; which invariable results in the participant succumbing to that cruel mistress, gravity, as they land squarely on their nether regions.

Rather, it’s just as Judge McConnell laid out.

A1S7 says that both houses have to pass (according to their own rules…it does not require an actual vote) the exact same bill and that this bill — and this bill only — is the one that can go to the president’s desk.

That wouldn’t happen with the Slaughter Solution. Everybody who’s merely looking at the “deeming” (whether to defend it or criticize it) is looking in the wrong place.

That’s not why this would be unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional because, at the end of the day, you would not have a single bill that had passed each house in identical form to his desk for signature into law.

Charles Krauthammer is right. It will be krakatoa.

I would just add that any member that votes to enable the Slaughter rule on something this overreaching will have that vote follow them forever. People won’t forget.

1. Can Slaughter be stopped in the House?
2. Sounds like taking it to court is a 50/50 proposition right now?

I’ve had a fun time today calling my Congresscritter and asking if she’ll support advancing the bill using the Slaughter Rule. I get the usual answer of “She’s waiting to see the bill.” So then I added “Let’s assume she thinks the bill is perfect. Would she favor using the Slaughter Rule to pass it?” No answer even though my Communist representative (Tammy Baldwin) will clearly vote yes all the way.

Like many around here, I too am an experienced attorney. But lets not fool ourselves over half bakes internet legal analysis.

The most liberal member of SCOTUS ruled on a line item veto case that a legislative bill must be passed in both houses and the wording of that bill must be exactly the same. It is precedent. Its not right wing internet opinion. The Federal Courts will never overcome that decision, not as long as the bench is not full of neo-marixists,

Thank you, Mr. Bush.

You GOTTA take the time to hear Lawrence O’Donnell, of all people, absolutely shred this process and the healthcare bill itself. O’Donnell says ‘deem and pass’ has never been done before. Clip # 2 is amazing !!

http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10427

Also, from Politico:
“No lawyer interviewed by POLITICO thought the constitutionality of the “deem and pass” approach being considered by House Democrats was an open-and-shut case either way. But most agreed that it could raise constitutional issues sufficiently credible that the Supreme Court might get interested, as it has in the past.

“If I were advising somebody,” on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, “I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let’s pretend.’ ‘Deems’ means it’s not true.”…

Alison Zieve, director of litigation for Public Citizen, said, “I agree it doesn’t feel good. It seems inconsistent with the wording of the relevant constitutional provision. And then the question is whether the constitution gives them flexibility to adopt procedures to streamline or guide their business.””

You should make sure that Pelosi and company have a copy of that SCOTUS decision immediately.

MO the Democrats risk a major tax revolt if they enact ObamaCare without an up or down vote in the House on it. Use of the Slaughter rule would create great disrespect for the law and thereby imperil the voluntary income tax system. Andrew McCarthy at NRO’s Corner pointed out that the “consent of the governed” is at stake here:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzFjYTQxODU3MGUyZDUyNjY2N2U2NmVmMWExYTU4NjE=

“This is what is happening to the legislative process. Sure, we don’t make lawmakers dot every “i” and cross every “t” every time. But that doesn’t mean we’ve abandoned the right to make them play it by the book when it comes to a controversial matter. When there’s a real dispute, they have to pass the bill the regular, constitutionally mandated way: Both houses on the exact same text, with every legislator accountable for his vote.

If, instead, the legislative process becomes a farce that departs from the constitutional procedures we are entitled to enforce, then it no longer represents the consent of the governed. It is the first American principle that government derives its just powers only from the consent of the governed, and when it takes on a form that becomes destructive of the fundamental rights of the governed, it is no longer legitimate.”

California State Controller John Chiang insisted that the State pay all state income tax refunds on time this year because he knew that another year of delaying payment would get too many Californians to underpay their income taxes so as to ensure that they wouldn’t have any refunds for the State to hold up. This can be done by taxpayers claiming additional exemptions from withholding.

But, as Chiang knew, such tactics if widespread would tube the State’s on-going tax revenues such that it would have to borrow more money during the year in anticipation of a spike of payments around April 15. He ordered prompt refund payments, despite California’s desperate financial problems, to save the state’s voluntary tax system.

But all Americans can do the same (claim lots of exemptions so no income taxes are withheld) with their federal income taxes. Once the federal government is perceived as illegitimate, and particularly when it demands that healthy young uninsureds pay medical insurance taxes, it risks a tax revolt using the present voluntary tax system as a vehicle. It would be criminal, but as the British learned in 1775, you can’t punish everyone in a tax revolt.

A tax revolt against ObamaCare would be a disaster for everyone save America’s freedom.

The Democrats assume that Americans are obedient subjects, aka Europeans, who will do what they are told. Some terrorists on United 93 found out otherwise on 9/11. Glenn Reynolds’ term for this American trait is “A pack, not a herd.”

We may get a chance to find out how far this will go.

then we the people can and should deem the November 2010 elections will have happened on April 15th 2010 and proceed to remove ALL U.S. House and U.S. Senate members from office. Start the replacement selection process tomorrow, so we can have the true values and principles fiscal conservative members who will take the “bull by the horns” and get our government “house in order” and return the country to the founders’ Constitution. We can “deem” the Presidential powers limited to the Constitution, the Judicial powers deemed only to the Constitution and the Legislative powers to the Congress. What a gleaming deeming that should be!

It appears that the tax revolt idea has occurred to lots of people.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/95795/

“March 16, 2010

IF CONGRESS CAN “DEEM” THE HEALTH CARE BILL PASSED WITHOUT ACTUALLY VOTING, perhaps taxpayers should “deem” their taxes to be considered paid without actually sending a check this year.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 6:37 pm”

Just to reiterate, we cut our own throats when we (Republicans) did the same thing (deeming).

You just can’t argue about karma, dood. You can whine but you can’t argue.

HS

As I understand the rule, the enactment or enforcement of the senate bill cannot be conditioned on passing the reconciliation bill. Obama will have to sign the senate bill as soon as it is “deemed passed” before the Senate acts.

Whatever they do, this thing has a better chance of not passing the house than it does of ever being ruled unconstitutional on any grounds in a court. That’s quite slim given that I still think this thing will pass or be “deemed” passed.

Can someone help me understand why the dems are still able to get the house members to vote for this after Massachusetts?

the spread of the moral relativism that has poisoned the minds of our citizens (and others within our borders).

Our government – indeed, our continued existence as the UNITED States of America – is wholly unsustainable for such an immoral and irreligious people.

on the Sean Hannity radio show today.

Would not say what he is going to to. Said his constituents clearly are opposed to Slaughter, etc. and that he is listening to them. He does not want to state publicly what he is going to do. I think he already knows but does not want to commit himself. He talked about the Senate bill only in the past tense. Seems he knows his only chance to vote will be Slaughter, and he is “concerned” about that and the other bad things, but says there are some good things in it. What a wimp.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

You need facts? Apparently the only facts you’ve exposed yourself to are the ones at http://www.moronechochamber.com.

Oops. Mavericktime presents Norm Ornstein’s piece that details for you the (wait for it … ) facts.

Joayn, pass the toilet paper, dear.

Just so we’re all on the same page, I am a consistently Republican-voting Conservative who would love to flush the unprincipled Republicans such as Bennett from Utah from our ranks. We need to clean our own hose first.

I miss him.

Reason.com reports:

“According to Congressional Quarterly, it looks like there’s a good chance that health care reform may be being held up by inconvenient scoring from the Congressional Budget Office. As it stands, the final text of the reconciliation bill—which would amend the Senate health reform bill—has yet to be released. Seems the reason why may be that the CBO is saying that the changes House Democrats want to make would cost too much.”

http://ow.ly/1n3nn

And Clyburn may be right that the vote won’t happen this week, as the Dems will have to keep resubmitting the reconciliation bill until they meet the spending and budget targets.

According to Howard Fineman. He’s giving a press conference tomorrow, probably to explain his switch. I wonder what happened on Air Force One yesterday that changed Kucinich’s mind?

I must admit my eyes rolled back in my head before you got to “of this”.

Sorry. Republicans (remember, I’m a Conservative) have only themselves to blame for this.

Lack of principle is a bipartisan infection.

One more for Joayn:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/out-of-the-archives-hoyer-lambasts-gop-use-of-the-slaughter-rule-in-2003/

Since there is no House/Senate conference, wouldn’t this deemed bill represent the Senate bill as seriously amended requiring consideration by full Senate?

Hatch was pretty good on Greta. He talked about the Senate bill’s special deals for certain states – like Vermont and Florida. I think the Republicans should keep talking like this. Nobody wants to pay for something that other states don’t have to pay for.

Hatch also said that the Democrats were “nuts.” I totally agree. The nuts have taken over the asylum!

One of the tea partiers visiting Congress today said this. I agree.

It occurred to me that the Democrats are simply trying to wear people down. People are getting so tired of hearing about this health care bill. They probably just want the whole thing to go away – even if they have to pass the bill to do it.

The problem is, I would hope that the Republicans wouldn’t let the bill go away – even if it’s passed. They need to challenge the legitimacy of a bill affecting every single American in a deep and personal way being passed just by Democrats. Never has something like this happened before.

We need his Capitol Hill report.

If this boondoggle makes it to Obama’s desk via “deem and pass,” AND the SC takes a whiff on this total rape of the Constitution, does anyone know how practical it would be for a new Republican majority to simply refuse any funding for it in future budgets?

It would require a showdown with Obama, but it would be a nice stopgap measure until the GOP can repeal it (maybe with a “deem and pass” manoeuvre of their own with a Republican in the WH).

I’m just thinking out loud here – because I’m getting the horrible feeling this will go through.

House Republicans forcing a vote on Pelosi’s Slaughter Solution?

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/16/house-republicans-to-force-vote-on-pelosis-slaughter-house-solution/

Excuse me for asking a silly question, but doesn’t this constitute a different bill since the House is refusing to pass the Senate bill thus making this a fillibuster bill.

I hope that the Republican Senate is already planning to try to conduct the filibuster since the Senate parlimentary will have to rule that the House didn’t pass the bill.

Or am I wrong?

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

Blankley:

“[O]ur governing system would not be broken as long as the president would do his constitutional duty — as assuredly he would — and neither sign nor veto it, but rather, publicly declare it a nullity, tear it up and burn it, as one would a piece of trash.

“I refuse to conjecture on any alternative action by the president.

“In other news, the White House spokesman last week engaged in an indecorous public exchange with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

Hoyer:

Process is interesting, particularly to all of us around this room. But in the final analysis, what is interesting to the American public is what does this bill do for them and their families.

where the Speaker and President of the Senate have certified a bill as passed. There remain constitutional issues, though – is the House passing the Senate bill verbatim? No attachments can exist, that would require a conference committee to resolve the differences.

The Senate Parliamentarian has already ruled that no “reconciliation” is in order until a bill has been passed by both House and Senate AND signed into law by the President, which raises the issue of the House’s trust of the Senate to get it done.

Besides, who is fooled? If a Rep votes for the Slaughter Rule, he has voted FOR the Senate bill, PERIOD. There is no rational argument that he has not. Do these people really think this charade will do them any good in November?

on Obamacare. Don’t be fooled, he was never anything but a YES. He said that he can now support the Senate bill because it satisfies his no federal money for abortion requirement?????????

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2011354314_edit16healthinsurance.html

Jay Cost had Brian Baird (D-WA) as “persuadable.” I wonder if this will make a difference.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/17/deem-and-pass-shows-lack-of-confidence-demeaning-of-democracy/

I’ll let you do the reading, dearie.

The end of the illusion is the President. Who says he does not know the political fallout of voting on a Federal health care legislation. But, he knows it is right. The President is an educated man. Harvard I believe. He knows that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to create or fund such a plan. He pushes his fellow Democrats and Republicans into more suspect conduct, as to conspire to circumvent the US Constitution…I believe the process also is un-lawful. A legislative vote is required by the Constitution. . I think my version of what is ‘right and just’ must be different from that of the President and Congress.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDE1MDE3MDJlMTQ3MDZmNTk5MTczMGUyYjczYzdiZTc=