Posted on 03/16/2010 3:34:49 AM PDT by Man50D
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, said Democrats can pass health care reform without actually voting on it, if they can pass a rule that deems the bill passed when the House approves a budget reconciliation bill.
Constitutional scholars, however, said that what the Democrats may try to do is unconstitutional and could spark a constitutional crisis far worse than Watergate or the South’s attempt at secession in the 19th century.
Dreier, speaking to reporters Monday in his Capitol Hill office, said there is nothing the majority party (Democrats) cannot do so long as the Rules Committee, where Democrats hold a 9-4 majority, authorizes it. This would include passing health reform without actually voting on it.
“There’s nothing that can prevent it,” Dreier said. “It’s something, David (a reporter) that they can clearly do, if they have the votes.”
Dreier was referring to a plan called the Slaughter Solution – named for Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) – that would have the Rules Committee draft a special rule of the House whereby the Senate-passed health care bill is deemed to have passed when the House passes a package of budget-related amendments to the bill.
The Rules Committee sets the rules of debate for legislation before it is brought to the House floor. Under normal circumstances the committee lays out how much time each side is allowed for floor debates and which amendments they can offer on the floor. Amendments that the majority does not want debated or offered on the floor are often added to legislation in the Rules Committee.
Such self-executing rules, as they are known, have been used by both parties to avoid extended debate on politically embarrassing matters, such as raising the national debt ceiling.
If Democrats use the Slaughter Solution, it would send the Senate-passed bill to the president to sign, and the amendments package would go to the Senate, where it presumably would be taken up under the budget reconciliation process.
Dreier, a past chairman of the committee, said that if the plan succeeds, the bill would become law, no matter how dubious the method of passage. Dreier said he had “explored” questions of the plan’s legality and found that the bill would still become law.
“I’ve explored that earlier today and I think that if it becomes law, it becomes law,” he said. “I think that that’s the case.”
When asked whether the plan was constitutional, Dreier deferred, saying that he wasn’t a constitutional lawyer. He did repeat, however, that if Democrats are able to pass their rule, then health care reform would become law.
“If this passes and is signed into law, I think it becomes law,” Dreier said. “I’m not a constitutional lawyer and that’s the response from some of the experts with whom I’ve spoken – I didn’t speak to but have gotten some input from. I’m not in a position to raise the (constitutionality) question right now.”
The question of constitutionality stems from the plain language of Article I, Section VII of the Constitution, which states that all bills must pass Congress via a vote of “yeas and nays.”
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States. … 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.”
Radio host and former Justice Department Chief of Staff Mark Levin criticized the Slaughter Solution as a “blatant violation” of the Constitution on his radio program on Thursday, March 11.
“I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the United States Constitution than this,” said Levin, who also runs the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation. “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 law by fiat, which would mean government by fiat.”
Constitutional law expert Arthur Fergenson, the lawyer who argued the famous Buckley v. Valeo case enshrining campaign spending as a form of constitutionally protected speech, weighed in on Levin’s Thursday program, calling the plan “ludicrous,” saying that such a move would be “dangerous” because it would amount to Congress ignoring clear constraints on its authority.
“It’s preposterous, it’s ludicrous, but it’s also dangerous,” Fergenson said. “It is common sense that a bill is the same item. It can’t be multiple bills. It can’t be mash-ups of bills. It has to be identical, that’s why the House and Senate after they pass versions of the bill – and we just had this with what was euphemistically called the jobs bill – if there are any changes they have to be re-voted by both chambers until they are identical.”
Fergenson explained that both chambers of Congress must each vote on identical bills before the president can sign them into law. Any bill signed by the president that had not first been voted on by both the House and Senate would be a “nullity,” he said.
“Both chambers have to vote on the bill,” Fergenson said. “If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House -- and there would be a bill presented (to Obama) engrossed by the House and Senate and sent to the president for his signature that was a bill that had not been voted on identically by the two houses of Congress -- that bill would be a nullity. It is not law, that is chaos.”
Former federal judge and the director of Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center Michael W. McConnell agreed with Fergenson’s assessment. Writing in The Wall Street Journal on March 15, McConnell called the Slaughter Solution “clever but … not constitutional.” McConnell noted that the House could not pass a package of amendments to a health reform bill it had not passed first.
“It may be clever, but it is not constitutional,” said McConnell in The Journal. “To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a ‘Bill’ to ‘become a Law,’ it ‘shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate’ and be ‘presented to the President of the United States’ for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has ‘passed’ both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.”
“The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote,” wrote McConnell. “The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. 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.’”
Yes except that Reid put thE phrase that this bill cannot be rescinded by any future Congress.
So the SCOTUS has to be at least one essential stop on the way to repeal, should this garbage actually pass.
[I heard this am that NaziP only has 200 votes. KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!!!!]
What do you imagine the Republican party is going to do now that you people left them without a majority in the House and Senate?
This is all your fault you know.
We will remember you.
Doesn't to me. He's telling the truth: Democrats have a majority on the rules committee and can make up whatever rules they want. That is what should be said. Over and over. They are making the rules up.
The leadership of the GOP better find their gonads, like yesterday, and take this national disgrace to the American people. The Sleeping Giant is awake and not in a good mood.
The “in-your-face” arrogance of these power-hungry Elitists isn’t going over with anyone I talk to. How about you and your associates?
Everyone I talk to and everywhere I go, incumbent is the new profanity.
Spineless, gutless, Eunuchs within the GOP need not run for re-election. The Republican Party better find a new leader other than Michael Steele who, IMO, has no spine.
What more could they do? All you need to do is ask your self this... if the dims... who KNOW how to win... if they were in the place that we find ourselves in... what would THEY do? Not what the spineless party is doing today... drier is saying that they can do it and it will pass and there is nothing that he and the party can do about it... Oh yes there is... but they have NO BALLS to do it with.
LLS
LLS
No matter which way they vote on the Health care bill, the Democrats are going to have between 50 and 60% of the voters angry at them. The exact number depend on the makeup of their district.
If they vote against the bill, they will also anger and demoralize their leftist base.
Assuming you care about re-election, would you want to face the voters with or without your base?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
LLS
Do you imagine any of our members of Congress can do much more than wear a Hamas suicide belt to the House or Senate?
They can't. Pelosi and her crowd even locked them out of the very meeting rooms where this abomination was under discussion.
THANK GOD I am NOT alone! Thank you!
LLS
The non-repeal clause in a piece of legislation does not trump the Constitutional prerogatives of a Congress to write new legislation.
That arbitrary rule doesn’t supersede the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 7.
Well, hell... why stop here?
100% tax rate on anyone who makes over 100K a year!
Free food for everyone who isn't white.
Free gas for anyone who drives a VW Bug or Prius.
Free health car! Free Netflix! Free! free! free!
Come on Democrats! Where are your stones?
All you have to do is make a rule and send it to Obama and your utopia is here, now, today!
Throw in *fiat* money and we have a party.
Worst Constitutional crisis since the CW, indeed.
Look at the post right above your response... that is what I think that they could be doing. Public opinion will never be brought to a deafening roar by talking about procedures and tactics... we need an in your face counter attack on the evilcrats and their destruction of our way of life. All we get is pablum with a side order of mush.
LLS
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.