The NEXT Speaker of the House!!!
Posted on 03/21/2010 6:03:19 PM PDT by katieanna
Don’t know if there’s hope but I’m doing yet another rosary.
The NEXT Speaker of the House!!!
Not sure, Bob.
My understanding;
The language will basically be anti abortion. If it passes, then the bill has to go back to the Senate; since the House will have essentially changed the bill. Many think that this will effectively kill the bill as it has to go through Senate committees again, and Dems will have to face the voters over Easter break.
If it doesn’t pass, then every Dem that votes it down will have their name tagged directly to a pro abortion vote; no getting around it or lying to their constituents come November.
It may be the last best hope of driving a stake in the heart of this monster.
The beauty of it is that Rahm Emmanual used the idea, to good effect against weak kneed Repubs, when he was in Senate as a way to create campaign ads against them.
Would this Motion To Recommit With Instructions reinsert the Stupak Amendment?
I asked the aide this. He said he did not know exactly the language it would contain. Indeed, for the Motion to have any teeth, it’d need the Stupak language. Let’s just say, a motion with Stupak language really puts so called pro-life dems who vote for passage on the spot.
That post is from last January and refers to “deem and pass’ not this.
TECHNICALLY: It would send the bill back to the committee from whence it came and be instantaneously re-presented to the House, containing an amendment referenced within the motion.
IN REALITY: It's a last ditch attempt to amend the bill.
Motion to ReCommit being Worked on Now
_________________________________________________________
A little late to be “working” on it, isn’t it? Should have been worked out already.
I’ve read this several times in the past few days, but I still don’t understand it fully:
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm
Small correction. Emmanuel was in the House of Representatives. But yes, that was the tactic he used.
doesnt this take it from the Senate straight to the president to be signed??? house wont have to vote again.
Not necessarily. They couldn’t word the Motion until they knew what Stupak agreed to with Pelosi.
“Can you explain it for me? I need a “Recommit for Dummies”.
Democrats worried about Republicans’ motion to recommit on Stupak language” ~ Lets Be Frank
Try this thread:
The Hill ^ | 3/21/10
Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:19:15 PM by JimWayne
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2476373/posts
Democrats are worried about holding their members together on a GOP motion that could kill the healthcare bill.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said House leaders are specifically concerned about a Republican motion to recommit that would contain only language on abortion that Stupak originally had wanted to include in the Senate bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
To: padre35; LS; dr_who
Also, from the news report, “During his press conference, Stupak said that he would be inclined to support a motion to recommit containing only his abortion amendment.”
9 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:22:41 PM by JimWayne
To: JimWayne
Explain to me what exactly this does. I’m lost in this procedure.
11 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:24:16 PM by LS
To: LS
The Minority Party will have one last chance to make amendments to the bill and can introduce it just before the vote. There will be a 10 minute debate on this and then the House votes to either send it back to the Committee or not. These votes are RECORDED.
Since they are recorded, most Dims who do not want to be associated with killing babies will vote for the amendment (so goes the thinking) and when it gets sent back to the Committee and they add the amended language and return the bill (all within minutes), the bill is now a totally different one from the Senate bill meaning that the Senate will have to vote on it again.
The suggestion here is that the Republicans should offer the Stupak language as the Motion to Recommit and either change the bill or force a recorded vote of their opposition to the amendment.
18 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:26:14 PM by JimWayne
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2476373/posts?page=18#18
To: LS
It won’t derail anything, it just splits the Dems on record.
22 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:27:09 PM by HarryCaul
Here’s my question. Since the vote is on the Senate bill and the abortion promise was made for reconciliation, isn’t it possible once the house approves the measure, that the Senate could deny it, and thus, allow FOR gov’t funded abortions?
Does anyone honestly believe democrats will not allow funded abortions?!?!?!
19 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:26:30 PM by rintense
To: rintense
You are absolutely right. That is why a Motion to Recommit is important. IF successful, it becomes a bill with a different text and the Senate will have to vote on it again. If it does not succeed, it at least records the votes of the House members who opposed the amendment in the Motion to Recommit.
27 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:28:27 PM by JimWayne
To: JimWayne
I don’t understand this much but I heard yesterday dKOS was very worried about this ‘motion to recommit’ and Hillbuzz was saying that it could be a very powerful weapon against the Dems.
32 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:33:03 PM by plushaye
To: JimWayne; Miss Didi
Ping for JimWayne’s explanation!
The Minority Party will have one last chance to make amendments to the bill and can introduce it just before the vote. There will be a 10 minute debate on this and then the House votes to either send it back to the Committee or not. These votes are RECORDED.
Since they are recorded, most Dims who do not want to be associated with killing babies will vote for the amendment (so goes the thinking) and when it gets sent back to the Committee and they add the amended language and return the bill (all within minutes), the bill is now a totally different one from the Senate bill meaning that the Senate will have to vote on it again.
The suggestion here is that the Republicans should offer the Stupak language as the Motion to Recommit and either change the bill or force a recorded vote of their opposition to the amendment.
34 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:34:00 PM by retrokitten
This is over. There is virtually no chance of this working.
i dont think this will matter...i think they had the votes sealed up 2 weeks ago and this is all for show.
I rarely get drunk, I drink to a buzz and keep it all night long, on those nights I choose, this being one. I am sad for my country on the one hand, but excited about the possibilities or subversion of the socialists. WE can do it, and we can have a lot of fun doing it. Grieve for America, get over it, and gather yourself for the coming revolt, were gonna have a hot time in the old town.
Germaine?
This is the MOST BRAZEN, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTI-CONSITUTIONAL, and ANTI-AMERICAN group of U.S. politicians, and U.S. political leaders in the history of the Republic. Yes! Even during the time of the Civil War. At least the South decided to SECEDE in the OPEN, not SUBVERT FROM WITHIN!
save
First rule of Fight Club, is not to talk about Fight Club....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.