Guess who opposed the Slaughter Rule in 2005?

posted at 9:30 am on March 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The year was 2005, and Republicans needed to raise the US debt limit in order to cover the costs of their increased spending.  The GOP used a self-executing rule to protect both Republicans and Democrats in the House from having to take an embarrassing vote to increase the national debt rather than start paying it down and cutting spending.  A lawsuit by a famous political gadfly gave some Democrats an opportunity to make deficit spending a big issue in the upcoming midterms, and guess which Democrats seized that opportunity by writing amicus briefs for the lawsuit?   Mark Tapscott recalls:

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here’s the argument they made:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

“Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.” (Emphasis added)

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

  • Nancy Pelosi
  • Henry Waxman
  • Louise Slaughter

If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it’s the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.

Debt limit increases are not exactly the stuff of revolutionary change.  Both parties have demanded and received authorization for the hikes.  The ObamaCare bill, on the other hand, imposes individual mandates on every resident in the nation to buy insurance, the first such mandate ever imposed.  Surely this would create standing for every single citizen to file this kind of lawsuit … right?

Well, maybe, but in Public Citizen v US District Court for DC, the appellate court for DC didn’t bother with the argument for Nader’s standing because it could rule straight away on the merits of their claim against the self-executing rule.  And conservatives won’t like that precedent:

The District Court held that Public Citizen’s bicameralism claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892). See Public Citizen v. Clerk, U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 451 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2006). In that case, the Court held that the judiciary must treat the attestations of “the two houses, through their presiding officers” as “conclusive evidence that [a bill] was passed by Congress.” Marshall Field, 143 U.S. 672-73. Under Marshall Field, a bill signed by the leaders of the House and Senate – an attested “enrolled bill” – establishes that Congress passed the text included therein “according to the forms of the Constitution,” and it “should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.” Id. at 672-73. Recognizing that Marshall Field’s “enrolled bill rule” prohibited it from questioning the congressional pedigree of the bill signed by the Speaker and President pro tempore, the District Court dismissed Public Citizen’s complaint and denied its motion for summary judgment. Public Citizen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 109. …

We agree with the District Court that the enrolled bill rule of Marshall Field controls the disposition of this case. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court. We find it unnecessary to determine whether Public Citizen has standing to bring suit, because we conclude that the Marshall Field rule of dismissal “represents the sort of ‘threshold question’ [that] . . . may be resolved before addressing jurisdiction.” Tenet v.Doe, 544 U.S. 1, 6 n.4 (2005).

In other words, the signatures of the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate are considered authoritative on the question of process.  The court refused to interfere on a political question in 1892 and has maintained that precedent since.  Unless this Supreme Court intends on overturning Marshall Field — an action that would create a constitutional crisis — Pelosi’s signature will be considered “unimpeachable,” at least in terms of process.  The courts will undoubtedly have more to say on the constitutionality of the actual law, but probably not on the Slaughter Rule.

Update: I credited David Freddoso with this piece, but it was written by another other good friend of mine at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott.  I’ve corrected the citation above.

Tags: , , , , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I for one would not hold out hope that SCOTUS would overrule the legislative branch in this case. It is my opinion that SCOTUS has historically looked at the voters as the fourth branch of government and leaves it up to the voters to undo these major shifts.

WashJeff on March 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Or a certain subset of voters, repeating history.

steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 12:22 PM

There might be some House and Senate rules about when the leader of the chamber can deem a bill ‘passed’? So it’s not simply a matter of them putting ink to paper?

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM

So? What keeps Pelosi and Biden from, well, deeming that those rules authorize them to sign the statement that the bill was passed by the respective chambers? If SCOTUS has foreclosed any inquiry into the internal operation of the two chambers, it has effectively reduced each to its presiding officer. And for that matter, how do we know that Nazi Pelosi actually is the Speaker? Has some document certifying her election been conveyed to SCOTUS, to establish her authority to certify that the House has passed a bill? Who certified that?

My point here is to demonstrate that Marshall Field logically leads to the antithesis of what the Constitution requires. If there is no way to challenge such a certification, the Republic is lost.

The Monster on March 16, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Reconciliation? Yeah it was done by the GOP.

Self Execution? Yeah it was done by the GOP.

TARP … the instrument of Obama’s socialization of America? Yeah – brought to you on a silver platter by the Bush administration and John McCain.

I’ll tell you what – we may not need a third party – but we damn sure need a NEW GOP party because the old really sucked – and it’s still biting us in the butt.

HondaV65 on March 16, 2010 at 9:42 AM

You’re just now getting to the point some of us have been at for years.

Both Partys are more interested in winning, and the money that comes with it, than anything else.

There are a few good people in Washington, but all it takes is a scoundrel to set a precedent ONCE… and it is then used forever.

The Courts have not stopped any Federal Power grab, since about 1890. They slowed a few for awhile, but once the Precedent was set for the Power grab… it never gets overturned, even if it is EXPRESSLY against the simply written words of the Constitution.

Guns were confiscated during Katrina.

Property is taken and given to others for profit (Kelo).

Insane Interstate Commerce decisions, where a farmer can’t grow feed for his OWN chickens…

Heck, even the Money we use is clearly Unconstitutional (its a Fed Res Note, and only CONGRESS can coin money).

Now… this…

When the only check on Federal Power, is the Federal Government itself, you will eventualy have Tyrany… its inevitable… as the ONLY check on Federal Power was that we were a Republic… but they now ignore the clearly written Laws (Constitution) that we aggreed to.

Romeo13 on March 16, 2010 at 12:27 PM

this article just proves that both the Ds and the Rs circumvent the constitution when it suits their purposes; we the people are screwed

Willie on March 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM

We the people, need to make them fear us again. They need to know, who are the real bosses here, and that we won’t sit idly by and let them do what they want, when they want. They answer to US. It can happen, and I know I’ve often felt defeated, but we can’t be that way, or we will be defeated. I refuse to sit idly by and take this crap, simply because they want to spoon feed it to me.

capejasmine on March 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Robert Samuelson writes:

There’s a parallel here: housing. Most Americans favor homeownership, but uncritical pro-homeownership policies (lax lending standards, puny down payments, hefty housing subsidies) helped cause the financial crisis. The same thing is happening with health care. The appeal of universal insurance — who, by the way, wants to be uninsured? — justifies half-truths and dubious policies. That the process is repeating itself suggests that our political leaders don’t learn even from proximate calamities.

Another parallel .. using consensus.
You’d think after the “consensus” that said Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs was proven untrue, that politicians would be slow to warm to a “consensus” on AGW .. but they didn’t learn from that set of proximate calamities either.

J_Crater on March 16, 2010 at 12:30 PM

My point here is to demonstrate that Marshall Field logically leads to the antithesis of what the Constitution requires. If there is no way to challenge such a certification, the Republic is lost.

The Monster on March 16, 2010 at 12:26 PM

That is why I call it the Slaughter Doomsday Sanction.

steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM

I’m probably missing something here. Let’s call the Senate Bill “A.” The House, under the Slaughter Solution, would vote on a bill, let’s call it “O,” having components A’, B and C. A’ is a resolution (or stipulation or whatever you want to call it) that Senate Bill A is deemed passed by the House. So, the House passes Bill O. Bill O then gets sent to the Senate which by reconciliation or by a successful cloture vote, passes Bill O which gets signed by the president. Seems to pass Constitutional muster to me, even though I think Bill A is a travesty. (By the way, the Public Citizen case does not seem to be implicated yet because both houses of Congress would be voting on identical Bill Os absent inadvertent errors. Of course, the Public Citizen appellate ruling, and perhaps the Marshall Field Supreme Court ruling are problematical for different reasons.)

Ira on March 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I’m probably missing something here. Let’s call the Senate Bill “A.” The House, under the Slaughter Solution, would vote on a bill, let’s call it “O,” having components A’, B and C. A’ is a resolution (or stipulation or whatever you want to call it) that Senate Bill A is deemed passed by the House. So, the House passes Bill O. Bill O then gets sent to the Senate which by reconciliation or by a successful cloture vote, passes Bill O which gets signed by the president. Seems to pass Constitutional muster to me, even though I think Bill A is a travesty. (By the way, the Public Citizen case does not seem to be implicated yet because both houses of Congress would be voting on identical Bill Os absent inadvertent errors. Of course, the Public Citizen appellate ruling, and perhaps the Marshall Field Supreme Court ruling are problematical for different reasons.)

Ira on March 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM

What you’re missing from that scenario is that the House never voted on Senate Bill “A”.

It’s actually a bit more complicated than that. What became to be known as the Senate version of PlaceboCare started life as a House bill, specifically HR 3950, that had nothing to do with health care. Harry Reid and company, rather than work with the House version of PlaceboCare they eventually got from the House, decided to strip every word from that House bill, put their own version of PlaceboCare in it, and send it back to the House.

What we have right now is two engrossed versions of HR 3950 (the version which passed the House, and the version which passed the Senate), which do not resemble each other in the least.

Of course, since the law of the land for the last 112 years has apparently been whatever the Speaker and the Vice President/President Pro Tempore decide to send the President is, in the eyes of the judiciary branch, the sole record of what was passed by both Houses of Congress, I’m surprised that Pelosi and Biden are even bothering with the other 534 members of Congress. After all, they, along with Obama, can apparently make law all by themselves.

steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 1:13 PM

What Pelosi and Slaughter lost on in 2005 WAS NOT A BILL!! It’s not appropriate to compare what was judged on in 2005 to what’s happening now.

joejm65 on March 16, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Does Marshall mean that the courts will just ignore unconstitutional legislative shenanigans?

gwelf on March 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM

As Ed points out, their decision was on the process, and not the law itself. More specifically, “from the journals of either House of Congress.” This has nothing to do with their “journal entries” as it relates to Marshall, it has to do with voting on the bill itself and the provisions in them. It isn’t some trivial matter, it is substance which is different; funding the bills is different; and the abortion language is different. Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892):

143 U. S. 670
The clause of the Constitution upon which the appellants rest their contention that the act in question was never passed by Congress is the one declaring that

“Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, except such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy, and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

Marshall was of the mind that the journal entries had to support the legislation for it necessary to be legally passed, and signed, by both houses.

143 U. S. 672
But the contention is that it cannot be regarded as a law of the United States if the journal of either house fails to show that it passed in the precise form in which it was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses and approved by the President.

The court has the right, and duty, to investigate whether a law was that passed conformed with the constitution. Here is a key piece in Marshall that needs to be mentioned.

The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept as having passed Congress all bills authenticated in the manner stated, leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act so authenticated is in conformity with the Constitution.

One other point mentioned in Marshall is this:

143 U. S. 672
It is said that under any other view, it becomes possible for the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to impose upon the people as a law a bill that was never passed by Congress. But this possibility is too remote
143 U. S. 673
to be seriously considered in the present inquiry. It suggests a deliberate conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on enrolled bills, and the clerks of the two houses must necessarily be parties, all acting with a common purpose to defeat an expression of the popular will in the mode prescribed by the Constitution.

This does appear what is happening now with the democratically controlled congress. The popular will is against the bill, and should this legislation pass, the popular will of the people is circumvented by their acts. The Public Citizen case was on one clerical error which was inserted into the language, with Public Citizen trying to void the whole legislation. Both houses had agreed to the correct language, which was inserted after the fact. This isn’t even close to either of these two instances.

One other case that gives credence to the passing of legislation by the both houses of congress, with majority of elected officials:

462 U. S. 948
By providing that no law could take effect without the concurrence of the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief, already remarked

462 U. S. 949

upon in connection with the Presentment Clauses, that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation’s elected officials.

Will the SCOTUS take on the question if it passes this way…I hope so.

Patriot Vet on March 16, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Western_Civ on March 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM

You can make it a link with the tool bar above.

Cybergeezer on March 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I think another way to approach Marshall is to look at it through the lens of Miller v US. In the Miller case, the Court did not rule whether a particular shotgun was covered by the 2A because its use was beyond judicial notice.

Similarly, in reading Marshall it’s plain that the Court considered the certification by the Speaker and the Senate President to be authoritative because it was beyond judicial notice to consider otherwise. Indeed, the decision goes into a few words about how unthinkable a certification would be that didn’t reflect the will of the chamber. But refute that assumption, show that the certification can’t be trusted to show what Marshall says it should show, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

JohnTant on March 16, 2010 at 2:39 PM

J_Crater on March 16, 2010 at 12:30 PM

That’s a misuse of the term “consensus”.

For any “consensus” to be valid, debate must continue. The fact that those promoting the “we have a consensus” line usually do so with a phrase like “The debate is over” or “stop talking and vote” or “STHU!” is a huge clue that those promoting “we have a consensus” are lying.

DSchoen on March 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Reconciliation? Yeah it was done by the GOP.

But never on something that didn’t exist.

Until Obama care passes and actually has a budget, you can’t make a case to Reconcile the “Obama Care” budget cuz it doesn’t have one due to the fact it currently doesn’t exist!

Self Execution? Yeah it was done by the GOP.

To increase the national debt. The “national debt” exist, Obama Care doesn’t!

DSchoen on March 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Fun fact: Cloward-Piven was bankrolled by the Ford Foundation. Obama’s mother and Tim Geithner’s father worked for the Ford foundation in Indonesia.

alliebobbitt on March 16, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Reconciliation? Yeah it was done by the GOP.

Self Execution? Yeah it was done by the GOP.

TARP … the instrument of Obama’s socialization of America? Yeah – brought to you on a silver platter by the Bush administration and John McCain.

I’ll tell you what – we may not need a third party – but we damn sure need a NEW GOP party because the old really sucked – and it’s still biting us in the butt.

HondaV65 on March 16, 2010 at 9:42 AM

You’re just now getting to the point some of us have been at for years.

Both Partys are more interested in winning, and the money that comes with it, than anything else.

There are a few good people in Washington, but all it takes is a scoundrel to set a precedent ONCE… and it is then used forever.

The Courts have not stopped any Federal Power grab, since about 1890. They slowed a few for awhile, but once the Precedent was set for the Power grab… it never gets overturned, even if it is EXPRESSLY against the simply written words of the Constitution.

Guns were confiscated during Katrina.

Property is taken and given to others for profit (Kelo).

Insane Interstate Commerce decisions, where a farmer can’t grow feed for his OWN chickens…

Heck, even the Money we use is clearly Unconstitutional (its a Fed Res Note, and only CONGRESS can coin money).

Now… this…

When the only check on Federal Power, is the Federal Government itself, you will eventualy have Tyrany… its inevitable… as the ONLY check on Federal Power was that we were a Republic… but they now ignore the clearly written Laws (Constitution) that we aggreed to.

Romeo13 on March 16, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I am so tired of this stuff. If the GOP were in control of the House and Senate right now, none of this would even be happening.

The GOP used Reconciliation the way it was intended to be used. The GOP supported TARP, but the money was supposed to be a loan, with the unused portion returned to the Treasury. Most of that money has in fact been paid back and it was the Obama administration that refused to follow the rules, not the GOP.

And Romeo, as far as Kelo was concerned, that had nothing to do with the GOP. That was a Supreme Court decision. As for guns being confiscated during Katrina…you know what? I might not agree with that but it pales in comparison with the crap we are seeing right now.

One of the reasons the Democrats can get away with this stuff is that people on the right are too busy eating their own to stand up against these people until it is too late.

Terrye on March 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The year was 2005, and Republicans needed to raise the US debt limit in order to cover the costs of their increased spending.

……

And here is why the country is finished.

Oh but this time they’ve “learned” their lesson!

/

artist on March 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Exactly, and everyone here will follow Rush down the road to socialism GOP style!

True_King on March 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The Republicans never used the Slaughter Rule, it did not even exist at the time. This is an entirely different situation.

Terrye on March 16, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Exactly, and everyone here will follow Rush down the road to socialism GOP style!

True_King on March 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Rush? Was he in the House or the Senate or the White House in 2005? And where were all these libertarians back then? Huh? In February of this year the budget deficit was $220 billion. In 2006, it was less than $170 billion for the whole year. That might not seem like a difference to a Paulbot, but it is the difference between solvency and insolvency. Even now people like you are too busy ranting and raving about Rush or Bush or whoever, to begin to deal with the people who are actually trying to bankrupt the country. I wonder whose side you are actually on.

Terrye on March 16, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Forget the swamp and pump out the cesspool.

bluegrass on March 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM

JohnTant on March 16, 2010 at 2:39 PM

First, thanks for finding the original Marshall Field decision. The bad news is the Court blew off all of those arguments. Quoting from the end of that section (143 U.S 679-680, part of the opinion of the Court as delivered by Justice Harlan):

But referring now only to matters which the Constitution does not require to be entered on the journals, it is clear that this is not a statutory declaration that the journals are the highest evidence of the facts stated in them, or complete evidence of all that occurs in the progress of business in the respective houses, much less that the authentication of an enrolled bill by the official signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses and of the President, as an act which has passed Congress and been approved by the President, may be overcome by what the journal of either house shows or fails to show.

We are of opinion, for the reasons stated, that it is not competent for the appellants to show, from the journals of either house, from the reports of committees, or from other documents printed by authority of Congress, that the enrolled bill, designated “H.R. 9416,” as finally passed, contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled act in the custody of the State Department.

Translation – it doesn’t matter what else was produced, or even voted on, by Congress – only the copy of the bill with the Speaker’s, Vice President’s (or Senate President Pro Tempore’s), and the President’s signatures is to be considered when considering whether a bill meets the Constitutional requirements of passage.

The question is, will the current SCOTUS take a second look at it 113 years later?

steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 5:22 PM

it doesn’t matter what else was produced, or even voted on, by Congress

Actually, one of the committees might think otherwise, since they are the ones who verify the bill and “enroll” it as passed before signature.

XVII. ENROLLMENT

When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies–either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report–a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task because it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by way of deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk of the House (with respect to bills originating in the House) receives the original engrossed bill, the engrossed Senate amendments, the signed conference report, the several messages from the Senate, and a notation of the final action by the House, for the purpose of preparing the enrolled copy. From these the enrolling clerk must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President. On occasion there have been upward of 500 amendments, particularly after a conference, each of which must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken.
The enrolled bill is printed on parchment paper, with a certificate on the reverse side of the last page, to be signed by the Clerk of the House stating that the bill originated in the House of Representatives (or by the Secretary of the Senate when the bill has originated in that body). It is examined for accuracy by the Committee on House Oversight (or by the Secretary of the Senate when the bill originated in that body). When the Committee is satisfied with the accuracy of the bill the Chairman of the Committee attaches a slip stating that it finds the bill truly enrolled and sends it to the Speaker of the House for signature. All bills, regardless of the body in which they originated, are signed first by the Speaker and then by the Vice President of the United States, who, under the Constitution, serves as the President of the Senate, or by the President pro tempore of the Senate. The Speaker of the House may sign enrolled bills whether or not the House is in session. The President of the Senate may sign bills only while the Senate is actually sitting but advance permission is normally granted to sign during a recess or after adjournment. If the Speaker or the President of the Senate is unable to sign the bill, it may be signed by the authorized presiding officer of the respective House. After both signatures are affixed the bill is returned to the Committee for the purpose of being presented to the President for action under the Constitution.

But what this boils down to is following the Constitution in making a bill law. This procedure is so far outside precedent, it begs the question on its validity. The SCOTUS has put it rather succinctly in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983):

The records of the Convention and debates in the states preceding ratification underscore the common desire to define and limit the exercise of the newly created federal powers affecting the states and the people. There is unmistakable expression of a determination that legislation by the national Congress be a step-by-step, deliberate and deliberative process.

The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental processes that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked. There is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the President. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952). With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.

The problem is with Article 1, Sec. 7:

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.

As it stands now, there is no bill. And according to the constitution, and the House Rules, they would have to vote on the underlying bill, first. And, if the SCOTUS is unable to address the concerns of the citizens in regards to the functioning of government, how in the world does an individual “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” under the Marshall ruling? That is their function in government. If they are unable, or unwilling, to perform that function, what has that body become?

Patriot Vet on March 16, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Patriot Vet on March 16, 2010 at 6:33 PM

I wish I could believe that; I really do. Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reid control all of the committees, and Pelosi controls the Hosue Clerk. What might throw a wrench in this is if the Government Printing Office (which the Senate notes is responsible for printing the enrolled version) refuses to print the enrolled bill.

Worse, SCOTUS (circa 1892) was very clear that the only evidence allowed was the copy of the bill on file with the approrpriate executive branch with the Speaker’s, the Vice President’s, and the President’s signatures on it claiming the remainder of the rules were followed. Nothing else, and specifically in this case, not the Congressional Record showing that no House vote on the Senate version of PlaceboCare happened, is allowed to be introduced to challenge the combined words of Pelosi and Biden. Even if Pelosi and Biden printed the “enrolled bill” themselves, and even if there was no vote at all in either House of Congress on it, their signatures, and that of the appropriate Clerk, would be considered sufficient under that precedent to deem the words on those pieces of paper to have been passed by majorities of both Houses.

Of course, if the current version of SCOTUS doesn’t feel bound by precedent that is at least as bad as Dred Scott, the Slaughter Doomsday Sanction wouldn’t stand judicial muster.

steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2