John / Billybob
In my opinion, we’re witnessing tyranny and treason perpetrated against the United States of America by our government. This thug Administration and this Congress have declared war upon We The People.
Maybe the House should give the Supreme Court a call, after all they are the ones who stood and cheered when Obama stuck his foot in his mouth during the State of the Union Address.
But, before the Supremes get involved, doesn’t someone have to file a lawsuit, which can only happen after it’s passed? And, won’t it have to work its way through the lower courts before the Supremes could issue a definitive ruling?
Obama didn’t help his cause when he castigated and villified the SCOTUS. This might turn out to be a howl!!
Bump for followup
Great piece as always, John. Another question...early in the discussion of Obamacare, way before the possibility of reconciliation came up..there was some talk that the mandate forcing individuals to purchase healthcare insurance was unconstitutional, and should be challenged in the courts...have you heard any more about this, and any thoughts?
Levin was pretty emphatic about the distinct and substantive possibility that action could be brought against Louise Slaughter for her efforts to subvert Constitutional rules. Not congressional rules, Constitutional rules. I believe he referred to Article 1, section 7, but I could be mis-remembering that.
What’s funny about this is that if this scenario played out you can guarantee whines and cries about the activist court and unconstitutionality of it. These would be the same Democrats that are currently trampling all over the constitution to get it passed.
I wouldn’t count on this option. Even if it would happen, it may take years. We’re just getting around to having the court repeal most of the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold.
It would be nice if this ended up in the court, seeing as how Barry just ground his boot heel in their faces during the state of the union. He does have a gift.
Interesting indeed, and thanks as always for sharing your wisdom and experience, John. I’ve under the presumption that the Democrat majority will prevail and pass “whatever”, and have been wondering about what comes next, i.e. what other remedies may exist. I will be very interested to get your take on whatever “rules” are followed, bent, or broken in the process of getting this jammed through Congress, as that would seem to be the key to SCOTUS involvement.
I’m also curious if you feel the blocking measures being considered by a number of states will have any merit in slowing down the HCR bill or in forcing a court test. Or are these efforts a waste of time based on federal presemption?
If they insist on bannana republic governance they should not be surprised if the people are driven to seek banana republic relief.
it’s called “the ends justify the means”
Who would have standing to contest the healthcare legislation on the basis of rules violation? Only a Member of the House or Senate? Would such a case be filed in the Federal District Court in D.C.? If so, I assume it would be appealed to the SCOTUS. I wonder how long it would take.
Excellent article, CB. Thanks.
The SOBs cant, with a huge majority, wrangle enough votes to pass the piece of trash so they try to just skip that part. I’m normally pretty laid back but this has pissed me off bad enough that I’m about ready to join a revolution!
Whats next?? Skip elections?? Make uhhbama prez for life???
THIS aint what America is about.
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.
A few points to be taken here: Note the use of "ALL" cases... no exceptions. You cannot make a rule to circumvent a clause of the constitution, without driving us to anarchy. Then, a requirement that the yes/no names be entered in the journal... as it says "shall", as opposed to might or may or should. The Slaughter-rule would send a bill to -19 without this very specific section being followed, by letter nor by spirit.
Thanks again for another informative post. I have followed you on FR for almost ten years now, and you have always delivered.
Woody
>> The Court can, should, and probably will throw out as unconstitutional – for breaking their own rules <<
101% agreed that they most certainly “should.”
I have the impression however that SCOTUS’ precedents on standing have been extremely restrictive when it comes to challenging congressional actions. For example, there’s no chance that the Court would grant standing to an ordinary citizen-voter like you or me.
So who do you think would have standing to bring a successful suit?
Can you dig around the law books and see if they’ve committed any hanging offenses? :)
Is anyone surprised?
What did they expect when a majority of ‘Progressives’ were elected?