U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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…
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn’t?”
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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…
According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.
Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
…It would be government by fiat… meaning there would be no law… the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us… at the brink. At the brink.
This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself, according to a senior aide to House Republicans.
The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution” – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.
Like the Senate, which adopted its health care reform measure on Christmas Eve, the House passed its version last year. But there are major differences between the two measures, especially concerning federal funding of abortions. The Senate version includes billions of dollars to fund new health care clinics that would offer abortion services. The House bill was passed only after Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment barring federal funding for the procedure was included.
Slaughter’s approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation(sic) bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version. The GOP aide, who requested anonymity, said a search of the House archives failed to reveal any previous use of the Slaughter Solution.
The slaughter option will slaughter the Constitution. I’m with Mark Levin, the GOP needs to call for Slaughter’s expulsion and bring wide attention to the underhanded recklessness of the Democrats.
Which means that, for probably the first time in U.S. history, the president will be signing into law a bill that never received its own vote on the House floor. The “what if a Republican did it?” meme is overused, but clear your mind and try to imagine the media reaction if the Frist/Hastert Congress tried something like this for, oh, say, social security reform. If ever you’re tempted to agree with idiots on the left who think the press is balanced, let that thought experiment be your corrective.
As for Levin’s idea: Yes, of course the vote will fail along party lines. So what? The only arrow left in the GOP’s quiver is to make sure the public knows precisely how obnoxious, illegal, and underhanded the Democrats’ behavior is. The media simply will not make this an issue unless Republicans drag them to it kicking and screaming, so start dragging.
Start contacting Republicans and tell them to expose this to the public and get as much attention as possible. The light needs to shine on these rats before they destroy our Republic and democracy. Michelle has the list of contact info you will need. So, what are you still doing here? Go!
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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…
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn’t?”
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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…
According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.
Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
…It would be government by fiat… meaning there would be no law… the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us… at the brink. At the brink.
This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself, according to a senior aide to House Republicans.
The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution” – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.
Like the Senate, which adopted its health care reform measure on Christmas Eve, the House passed its version last year. But there are major differences between the two measures, especially concerning federal funding of abortions. The Senate version includes billions of dollars to fund new health care clinics that would offer abortion services. The House bill was passed only after Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment barring federal funding for the procedure was included.
Slaughter’s approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation(sic) bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version. The GOP aide, who requested anonymity, said a search of the House archives failed to reveal any previous use of the Slaughter Solution.
The slaughter option will slaughter the Constitution. I’m with Mark Levin, the GOP needs to call for Slaughter’s expulsion and bring wide attention to the underhanded recklessness of the Democrats.
Which means that, for probably the first time in U.S. history, the president will be signing into law a bill that never received its own vote on the House floor. The “what if a Republican did it?” meme is overused, but clear your mind and try to imagine the media reaction if the Frist/Hastert Congress tried something like this for, oh, say, social security reform. If ever you’re tempted to agree with idiots on the left who think the press is balanced, let that thought experiment be your corrective.
As for Levin’s idea: Yes, of course the vote will fail along party lines. So what? The only arrow left in the GOP’s quiver is to make sure the public knows precisely how obnoxious, illegal, and underhanded the Democrats’ behavior is. The media simply will not make this an issue unless Republicans drag them to it kicking and screaming, so start dragging.
Start contacting Republicans and tell them to expose this to the public and get as much attention as possible. The light needs to shine on these rats before they destroy our Republic and democracy. Michelle has the list of contact info you will need. So, what are you still doing here? Go!
Co-author of Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
Despite the devastating financial impact it will have on all American households and businesses, President Obama declares Cap and Trade must be passed this year. As with suggestions for better-structured health care reform, there is a way to clean the planet without imposing dire hardships on its inhabitants, including those living in the United States. Yet, President Obama yields to the strident call of radical environmentalists such as Al Gore, reportedly desirous to become the first global-warming billionaire, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In a Washington Post opinion column, Ban blamed the slaughter in Darfur on global warming instead of the Muslim genocide being perpetrated against non-Muslim blacks. With that, one would have to extrapolate that Osama bin Laden’s call for jihad in Darfur is also the result of global warming. With extreme hyperbole, Ban warns of war and pestilence to come if the United States does not throw billions of Americans’ tax dollars into an increasingly deceptive environmental abyss.
President Obama should put a lock on the U.S. treasury in the face of the environmental embarrassment known as climate-gate with revelations of fraud and erupting scandals among pro-global warming scientists. Yet, once again, the President is rushing to bow to a far-left agenda of international wants instead of looking out for America’s needs. With record setting snowfall and planet-cooling temperatures being documented worldwide and with the latest science and nature stacking against him, why is President Obama adamant in forcing through disastrous Cap and Trade legislation? All the while, he dispassionately declares that Americans’ energy bills will necessarily “skyrocket.”
Enter: AGENDA 21. Agenda 21 is a United Nation’s game plan for a radical transformation of the global society. At the Rio Earth Summit, Al Gore stated that “Americans are going to have to face a wrenching transformation of Society.” President Obama’s stated goal is a “transformation of America” as we know it. The innocuous term used by the United Nations to accomplish this transformation is “Sustainable Development.” Broken down, that means the dismantling of America as a sovereign nation and the globalization of our economy and our laws. Our rate of development, according to globalists, is “un-sustainable” based on underdeveloped countries. In effect, it restricts population and economic growth in America through government-controlled health care and through decreased and redistributed resources such as energy and wealth. Americans should no longer “sustain life” of the very young or elderly or remain sovereign and prosperous. The globalists’ creed is – the planet cannot endure it.
Progressive politicians on both sides of the aisle have signed on to Agenda 21’s “Sustainable Development.” Obama’s health-scare will have a vice-like grip on who gets medical care – who lives or dies, whereas Cap and Trade, that Obama so desperately wants, will allow the government to have a vice-like grip on how Americans live. With Cap and Trade, the Environmental Protection Agency will have power to force many homeowners to virtually rebuild their homes to meet stringent environmental requirements before they can sell them. Living in a house that does not meet the EPA’s “green” regulations for roofing, windows, doors, insulation or heating and cooling systems will be slapped with fines. Electrical companies are now installing “smart monitoring systems” to track usage of energy by residents. Hence, President Obama’s warning that your energy bills will “skyrocket.” This represents only one area of control.
America’s health, wealth, and way of life are to be sacrificed to global need based on bogus science by those who believe you can be duped into believing it is all in your best interest and the interest of the planet. Cap and Trade is a global agenda with pockets to be lined at America’s expense. President Obama says there is a “deficit of trust” in America. What he did not say is that it is directed at the White House.
A group of Hispanic lawmakers on Thursday will tell President Barack Obama that they may not vote for healthcare reform unless changes are made to the bill’s immigration provisions.
immigration remains just as explosive an issue and carries the same potential to derail the entire healthcare endgame, a number of Democrats said.
“It’s still one of those issues that’s out there,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), the Democratic Caucus vice chairman and the only Hispanic member of House leadership.
And what is the issue (as if you couldn’t have guessed)
The Senate language would prohibit illegal immigrants’ buying healthcare coverage from the proposed health exchanges. The House-passed bill isn’t as restrictive, but it does — like the Senate bill — bar illegal immigrants from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance.
Hispanic Democrats say they haven’t moved from their stance that they will not vote for a healthcare bill containing the Senate’s prohibitions.
They claim that while it may be politically popular in some parts of the country to ban illegal immigrants from using their own money to buy coverage, it is not good policy. Illegal immigrants will, one way or another, need medical attention in the United States, and it would be cheaper and more humane to provide them coverage if they pay for it. Otherwise, they will seek treatments in the nation’s emergency rooms, effectively increasing medical costs.
One would think it would be also legally popular, since illegals are here in the United States, well, illegally. As in against the law, both criminally and civilly.
So, if government sponsored health insurance for illegal aliens is put back in the legislation, that should make it even more popular with the American people. And I am so darned glad that folks on the left are so concerned with following the law.
How desperate is the Senate to force Obamacare down everyone’s throat? VERY. Now that it is clear pro-life Democrats won’t budge on their principles…the Senate is considering hoodwinking the American people with a deceptive move dubbed the Slaughter solution.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but House members would be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Democrats who think the Senate bill doesn’t sufficiently limit abortion rights would never have to be on record as having voted for it. (Because the Senate abortion language can’t be fixed in [the reconciliation bill] for procedural reasons, some Democratic aides say there is talk about a later bill that would handle these issues.)
What a transparent Congress we have. I’m glad they drained the swamp. On the bright side, if Democrats do this you can all but call it a Republican Congress next year.
