Former federal judge: Yes, the Slaughter strategy is unconstitutional

posted at 8:05 pm on March 19, 2010 by Allahpundit

Another bite at the apple for Michael McConnell, who was appointed to the appellate bench by Bush, seriously considered for a Supreme Court seat, and who blasted Slaughter’s gambit in the Journal just a few days ago. The left reacted to his piece by noting that “deem and pass” has been used before — which is true. But it’s not “deem and pass” that’s the big problem, says MM.

It’s deem, pass, and split.

No one doubts that the House can consolidate two bills in a single measure; the question is whether, having done so, it may then hive the resulting bill into two parts, treating one part as an enrolled bill ready for presidential signature and the other part as a House bill ready for senatorial consideration. That seems inconsistent with the principle that the president may sign only bills in the exact form that they have passed both houses. A combination of two bills is not in “the same form” as either bill separately.

Defenders of the Democratic strategy say that a self-executing rule has been used many times before by both parties. But never in this way. Most of the time a self-executing rule is used to incorporate amendments into a pending bill without actual votes on the amendments, where the bill is then subject to a final vote by the House and Senate. That usage may be a dodge around House rules, but it does not violate the Constitution. I am not aware of any instance where a self-executing rule has been used to send one bill to the president for signature and another to the Senate for consideration by means of a single vote.

This goes back to that bombshell parliamentarian ruling insisting that Obama has to sign something before the Senate can start on reconciliation. The whole point of the Slaughter strategy originally, as I understood it, was to make it impossible for Obama to sign the Senate bill into law until Reid passed a fix matching the House’s. Instead of voting separately on Bill A (Reid’s Senate bill) and Bill B (a reconciliation fix), the House would integrate them into Bill AB — which Obama couldn’t sign until Reid passed B, too. That’s how Pelosi was going to assure wavering Dems that the Senate would keep its promise to pass something. If they didn’t, O-Care would be dead. In other words, the point was never to split Bill AB back into separate bills after it passed (I think) but, on the contrary, to keep it intact. The parliamentarian destroyed that possibility, and yet, bizarrely, despite the potentially catastrophic constitutional flaw, they’re … still going to use the Slaughter strategy. The idea, I guess, is that there’s some political benefit to letting House Dems claim that they technically never voted for Bill A, Reid’s bill, only the new and improved Bill AB. But if reconciliation collapses in the Senate, all they’ll be left with is Bill A and a killer GOP talking point that the new health-care law of the land was, by the Democrats’ own admission, never technically voted into law. Super.

As for the separation of powers argument that the court shouldn’t and won’t second-guess Congress on its own procedures, I know there’s some semi-precedent for it but … really? So if Reid and Pelosi hold a joint presser tomorrow summarily declaring that the Senate bill and the fix shall now be considered duly passed, John Roberts and the gang would nod at that? Even I’m not that pessimistic.

Update: To put it differently, unless I misunderstood what Slaughter was aiming for, the Democrats liked her strategy originally precisely because they agreed with McConnell that you can’t split a merged bill once it’s passed. That was their leverage over Reid: Once they passed it, he had to match it by passing the fix. If he failed, splitting the House bill and sending Bill A only to Obama for signature wasn’t an option.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

So they are using Slaughter? I’m so confused!!

changer1701 on March 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM

So they are using Slaughter? I’m so confused!!

changer1701 on March 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM

yes

runner on March 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Good thing Barry cozied up to the SCOTUS, oops.

Daveyardbird on March 19, 2010 at 8:10 PM

I’m putting my money toward the law suit that Levin is starting…

lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM

We can only hope now that the Lilly livered Dems are bowing to God Obama.

PappyD61 on March 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM

So they are using Slaughter? I’m so confused!!

changer1701 on March 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Yes. They could not get the votes for the Senate bill.

The votes being collected right now is technically for the reconciliation bill, and the Senate bill gets approved along with it without them technically voting on it.

The reconciliation bill goes to the Senate and the Senate bill is considered passed by Congress and goes to Barry. Then he supposedly waits for the reconciliation bill to pass the Senate and sign all of it.

Then a coyote chases a roadrunner in a rocket sled.

Chuck Schick on March 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM

If this thing passes, it will be an even bigger zoo than what we are experiencing right now.

Buford Gooch on March 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Barry, in his own special way, was trying to bully the SCOTUS. He has left no stone unturned.

mobydutch on March 19, 2010 at 8:13 PM

runner on March 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Thanks. I can’t keep up with all the shenanigans.

changer1701 on March 19, 2010 at 8:13 PM

they know they have a major problem with this – that is why Hoyer let it be know that if there is a legal challenge, they are armed and ready (yeah, right, good luck with that). also explains obama’s attack on Roberts/supreme court.
I hope it does not get to that, because we may end up with the Senate version as the law of the land, even after all the legal challenges.

runner on March 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM

WTF…seriously this is causing me a migraine. This scheme is built on the flimsiest of foundations and it seems that the legal challenges to smash it to bits are numerous and obvious.

Any wavering ‘rat should be loping from the plan like a flushed rabbit. How stupid are they going to feel if they sell their vote for a pittance and a promise only to have the entire scheme collapse around them in court?

Bishop on March 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Then a coyote chases a roadrunner in a rocket sled.

Chuck Schick on March 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Acme Rocket Co.?

Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM

It has to be – no other explanation makes sense.

gophergirl on March 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM

As for the separation of powers argument that the court shouldn’t and won’t second-guess Congress on its own procedures, I know there’s some semi-precedent for it but … really? So if Reid and Pelosi hold a joint presser tomorrow summarily declaring that the Senate bill and the fix shall now be considered duly passed, John Roberts and the gang would nod at that? Even I’m not that pessimistic.

Exactly.

If you hold this to be true:

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.”

Then why should Pelosi and Reid even have their respective chambers vote on anything at all? They can just write the bills on their own, sign them, and send them to Obama. Rule by legislative fiat. There’s no way in hell the SCOTUS would go along with that – not even the liberal wing.

KSgop on March 19, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Acme Rocket Co.?

Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Who else?

Chuck Schick on March 19, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I’m fairly well versed in the workings of our republic. Heck, I tested out of American Government, but this Demon Pass stuff virgin territory for me. A fugly virgin at that.

pugwriter on March 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM

There is the problem that the reconciliation bill gets changed in the Senate and then must be voted on again by the House. Keith Hennessey, Buth43′s chief economic advisor said he found three serious Byrd violations (and presumably privately forwarded them to the Senate GOP) in the House reconciliation.

That is part of the nightmare. The only “passed” bill is the unchanged Senate version. And even that was only “deemed passed” in a House rule.

Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM

If Pelosi & Co. spent a year on this, only to be overturned on a Constitutional hang-up with the process, I’m throwing a f*cking party. Bring your own beer.

amerpundit on March 19, 2010 at 8:19 PM

So the Democrats are lining up to vote YES on a Bill, that’s so unpopular, process and policy – with law suits already getting ready to be filed. And they want everyone to know they signed on to it?

Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Question for thought: if the Slaughter Solution is approved on Sunday and the Chairman signs it is he clearly violating his oath of office to defend/protect/uphold US Constitution? And if so, can he impeached?

Interesting article on this at Edmund Burke Institute.

Dick Turpin on March 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Nice post; that’s very clear put in terms the judge has.

Spirit of 1776 on March 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM

I Still Believe

Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Scalia’s opinion by itself will no doubt be worth the brain damage we’re going through now watching these pathetic idiots pretending to legislate.

Pavel on March 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I didn’t know they could split it?

deidre on March 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Dick Turpin on March 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM

You mean even if we could get past the hang-up for a Democratic majority when we couldn’t even impeach Clinton for straight-up perjury? Unlikely.

amerpundit on March 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM

QUESTION FOR HOTAIR MEMBERS:

Do you think the phone lines will be off tomorrow in the capitol? If yes, how can the people continue to protest so that the congressmen know their views?

Will y’all email? Will faxes get through? Or will everything be shutdown so the people cannot be heard?

texasconserv on March 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM

So they are using Slaughter? I’m so confused!!

changer1701 on March 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Yeah, they pretty much have to, unless they want a direct vote on the Senate bill alone, which is poison.

According to the Senate parliamentarian, they have to have Obama sign the Senate bill in order for the Senate to act on reconciliation. That means the House has to pass the Senate bill itself, by hook or by crook. I think you can figure out which.

RINO in Name Only on March 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM

If Pelosi & Co. spent a year on this, only to be overturned on a Constitutional hang-up with the process, I’m throwing a f*cking party. Bring your own beer.
amerpundit on March 19, 2010 at 8:19 PM

You’re throwing a party where I have to BYOB?

Come on man, at my place you get free beer, ribs, chicken wings, AND you can take the mini-bikes for a spin.

Bishop on March 19, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I’m confused, is all of the yes and no vote counting that we have been following for the “Slaughter Strategy” or the Senate bill?

farright on March 19, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I Still Believe
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I likey Dr Evil.

I still believe too!!!!!

yoda on March 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Soetoro is so much smarter than McConnell. Barry was a part-time lecturer re: constitutional law!

BHO Jonestown on March 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM

I Still Believe
Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I’ll see that and raise you an Uprising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtZV5XdfqrI

Bishop on March 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Well, if bill AB has to go back to the Senate before BHO can see it (which should be the constitutional decision), then fine. Let’s keep the merry-go-round a turnin’. The Senate will be unable to pass the whole ball of wax on reconciliation.

JeffWeimer on March 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM

I read somewhere that FUBO will be there tomorrow. I hope those that will be there tomorrow can protest while he’s walking into the House. It’s impossible for me to make it but I will be there in spirit.

Brat4life on March 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM

That is part of the nightmare. The only “passed” bill is the unchanged Senate version. And even that was only “deemed passed” in a House rule.

Wethal on March 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM

But isn’t this even worse for the Dems?

Deem and pass fuses 2 bills. That means the House and Senate passed different bills. The President cannot sign that into law.

That would easily be blown out of the water by the SCOTUS.

Chuck Schick on March 19, 2010 at 8:29 PM

and the Senate bill is considered passed by Congress and goes to Barry

But that’s the exact Constitutional problem. The Senate Bill will not have met the requirements that every bill sent for the President’s signature shall have been passed in both Houses with an up or down vote, recording the yeas and nahs. If the Slaughter Hoax to Legislation is used, there will be no vote of the Senate bill (and therefore no recording which is what the Dems want but is required by the Constitution) in the House.

katablog.com on March 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM

I like to work on the condition that Truth is the only real foundation. Anything built on lies will come tumbling down.

I believe, with all my being, that this POS will hit the ground with a thud so hard, it will spike the rector scale.

Has anyone thought about how they are going to enforce this POS. They can’t/won’t enforce immigration law for supposedly 15 million illegals. How in the hell are they going to enforce the law for 300+ million? I know, the IRS. But look at Tax Cheat Timmy. The IRS wouldn’t know anything about his cheating on taxes if he wasn’t in Obama’s cabinet.

Seriously, how are they going to enforce it.

PappaMac on March 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Scalia’s opinion by itself will no doubt be worth the brain damage we’re going through now watching these pathetic idiots pretending to legislate.

Pavel on March 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM

And you know all nine justices are already rolling the potentiality of this coming before them in their heads. I mean, they’re concentrating on the briefs before them, I know, but they aren’t living in a monastery. I imagine Scalia cannot wait to write an opinion on this monster.

pugwriter on March 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM

I’m confused, is all of the yes and no vote counting that we have been following for the “Slaughter Strategy” or the Senate bill?

farright on March 19, 2010 at 8:24 PM

most in the house do not want to vote on the Senate bill, so to make it easier, they created a bunch of sweeteners-reconciliation amendments, to get the votes and then pulled a rule out of their a$$ to say that voting for one is like voting for both. sort of jumping over the Senate bill and voting the reconciliation first.

runner on March 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM

craft noxious Marxist policies – check

ignore the polls – check

ignore economic realities – check

attempt to enact illegal legislation – check

ignore and attack the Constitution – check

publicly attack the Supreme Court – check

intimidate and coerce the society at large – check

attack the media – check

demonize political opponents – check

try to use the mob to keep “allies” in line – check

thugs and criminals enriching themselves at our costs -check

etc. etc. etc.

Venezuela or the US?

Ochavez and Pelosi will pay dearly for what they are trying to do.

elduende on March 19, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Has the actual text of the Slaughter rule resolution ever been posted anywhere yet? (I’d guess it probably hasn’t been)

KSgop on March 19, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Two questions

1) Even if this strategy had been used before, could it still be found to be un-Constitutional?

2) How could the “split” be found Constitutional?

MeatHeadinCA on March 19, 2010 at 8:32 PM

I didn’t know they could split it?

deidre on March 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM

They can’t. They are making it up as they go along. They are going to break all the rules they want. The visual I get is a little kid with his hands on his hips saying, “Oh yea…. proooove it!”

PrincipledPilgrim on March 19, 2010 at 8:33 PM

so the vote counts are for the reconciliation portion

runner on March 19, 2010 at 8:34 PM

But that’s the exact Constitutional problem. The Senate Bill will not have met the requirements that every bill sent for the President’s signature shall have been passed in both Houses with an up or down vote, recording the yeas and nahs. If the Slaughter Hoax to Legislation is used, there will be no vote of the Senate bill (and therefore no recording which is what the Dems want but is required by the Constitution) in the House.

katablog.com on March 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM

But that’s OK- so long as they remained ONE BILL as they have in all the past uses of deem and pass.

So they have problems no matter what they do:

1) If everything passes the Senate, they had 2 bills moving separately- one to Senate, one to Obama. This seems to violate both reconciliation and deem and pass

2) If the Senate votes down reconciliation or changes it one bit: the 2 chambers passed 2 different bills

Seems like this will get struck down either way, but what do I know.

Chuck Schick on March 19, 2010 at 8:34 PM

I’m confused, is all of the yes and no vote counting that we have been following for the “Slaughter Strategy” or the Senate bill?

For the Slaughter Strategy. That’s the whole point, the House can’t get enough votes to actually pass the Senate bill so they want to pass a reconciliation bill (their fixes to the Senate bill) and declare (unconstitutionally) that they “deem” the Senate bill passed.

Anyone can read the Constitution though and Article 1, Section 7 requires every bill for the President’s signature to have been passed in BOTH Houses and goes further by requiring an actual vote where yeas and nays are recorded.

katablog.com on March 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

I’ve got no constitutional strings
To hold me down
To make me fret, or make me frown
I once had some very inconvenient constitutional strings
But now I’m free
There are no constitutional strings on me!

Hi-ho the me-ri-o, I won!!!
That’s the only way to go
I want the world to know
Nothing constitutional ever worries me

Hi-ho the me-ri-o, I won!!!
I’m as happy as can be
I want the world to know
Nothing constitutional ever worries me

I’ve got no constitutional strings
So I have fun
I’m not tied up to the laws of anyone
They’ve got constitutional strings
But as you can plainly see
There are no constitutional strings on me!

Cheshire Cat on March 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

A little more hope?

Medicare fix would push health care into the red
Rollback of Medicare cuts to doctors, if added to health care bill, push it into the red

On Friday March 19, 2010, 6:33 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

The lies and deception Pelosi, et. al. have foisted on the public are unforgiveable.

Cody1991 on March 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Will y’all email? Will faxes get through? Or will everything be shutdown so the people cannot be heard?

texasconserv on March 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM

E-mail might get through, but it’s anyone’s guess whether the staffers will actually read it. My preferred M.O. is to fax. If nothing else, it chews up their paper and toner supply.

A good thing to fax is a copy of a check made out to their opponent’s campaign.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Here is the actual language of Article 1, Section 7:

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.

katablog.com on March 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM

If I were younger I would be in DC and pulling down every brick, tree limb, monument, plaque et al that I could reach. Obama needs to be embarrassed beyond saving by having to call out the National Guard and/or police against his own people. No President can live that down, ever, no matter what bills he forces on us or how he does it. Time for civil disobedience on a huge scale. Make him and his look irreparably bad in the eyes of the country and the world. Those folks above who say the time for words has passed are right.(never thought I’d be saying or advocating this–never)

jeanie on March 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Michelle Bachmann Kill the Bill Rally.

http://www.michelebachmann.com/news.php?cid=76

Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

If Pelosi & Co. spent a year on this, only to be overturned on a Constitutional hang-up with the process, I’m throwing a f*cking party. Bring your own beer.

amerpundit on March 19, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Hell…from uncontrollable dancing I would not settle down enough to drink!

Saltysam on March 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

A 1960′s melodrama would put us on top, but that was when we didn’t have so many lawyers. I think they are the roots of all this evil. Those a## holes infect everything. I bet that if congress were to write a bill like this back in the 60′s it would be less than 100 pages. Good folk just have no real way of knowing what the he!! is happenin’!!!

PaCadle on March 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

There’s no way in hell the SCOTUS would go along with that – not even the liberal wing.

KSgop on March 19, 2010 at 8:16 PM

What makes you so sure of that? I have seen no evidence that would support that up to this point.

whbates on March 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Hey Barry! Remember that comment at the SOTU, where you dissed the Supreme Court? Better HOPE ‘your’ bill doesn’t end up there!

GarandFan on March 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM

CNN

What happens if health care reform dies?

But Democratic leaders are facing an uphill battle in convincing some of their own members to push the legislation forward — and hoping history doesn’t repeat itsel

William Amos on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

If we all get banned, I just want you to know that I love you guys.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

More and more, Barack Obama’s presidency reminds me, not in all ways, but in all too many ways, of The Outer Limits, 1963 TV episode, “The Hundred Days of the Dragon”.

MB4 on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Ditto!

PappaMac on March 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM

No matter what side of the isle you’re from, this will be known as the “Sunday of redemption” or the “Sunday from hell”.

Rod on March 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM

As for the separation of powers argument that the court shouldn’t and won’t second-guess Congress on its own procedures,

Huh? Explicit Constitutional demands of Congress are not “Congress on its own procedures”.

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM

A good thing to fax is a copy of a check made out to their opponent’s campaign.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM

A good thing to fax is a copy of a check made out to their opponent’s campaign.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM

A good thing to fax is a copy of a check made out to their opponent’s campaign.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM

—-spread it around.

Saltysam on March 19, 2010 at 8:43 PM

mrpeabody on March 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Sounds good to me.

farright on March 19, 2010 at 8:44 PM

If we all get banned, I just want you to know that I love you guys.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Hey, come visit us on FB! (click on my moniker)

MeatHeadinCA on March 19, 2010 at 8:44 PM

That was their leverage over Reid: Once they passed it, he had to match it by passing the fix

So, this Obama government thinks we all need a FIX? This whole disaster has been nothing but a fix. Talk about a government on narcotics.

(What do you mean I have to wait for six months to get my fix? Will the needle exchanges be covered?)

Rovin on March 19, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Dr Evil on March 19, 2010 at 8:13 PM

I LOVE that song…Lost Boys was a greawt movie (since I had no idea what to expect when I first saw it).

Did you get an email from Burgess this evening? A survey about HC?

Yellowdog12 on March 19, 2010 at 8:45 PM

greawt = great, unless I’m imitating Baba Wawa

Yellowdog12 on March 19, 2010 at 8:45 PM

And I want to thank AllahP and Ed, sincerely, for this wonderful place to meet. If I do manage through intemperance to get myself banned, it’s their house and their rules (though I wish said rules might be a little better articulated).

Time for me to run along now. I’ll be back on here tomorrow morning after calling everyone on SheetAnchor’s list One More Time!

May a miracle occur this weekend.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:46 PM

If we all get banned, I just want you to know that I love you guys.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

We are a lovable bunch, aren’t we? Most of us, anyway.
Kill The Bill!

kingsjester on March 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Phew! Stupak is not relenting. I was worried.

andy85719 on March 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM

If we all get banned, I just want you to know that I love you guys.

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Love you too Mary, and all the effort you put into posting the contact info throughout the day.

You’re a remarkable gal. I may be 3k miles away but I hope to meet you on the front line.

Rod on March 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Love you too Mary, and all the effort you put into posting the contact info throughout the day.

You’re a remarkable gal. I may be 3k miles away but I hope to meet you on the front line.

Rod on March 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Thanks, you’re very kind, but SheetAnchor did the work on that contact list — I just helped spread it around a little.

I’ll be in Washington D.C. on April 15! Look for a large pitchfork. I’ll be the gal hanging onto it. ;-)

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Okay, now I’m really outta here! :-)

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Then, their corpses would be allowed to remain there until their bones turned to dust. Their replacements would have to pass by there coming and going, everyday Congress was in session. Me? Why yes, I am blood thirsty.

mrpeabody on March 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM

These will be glorious days
Come gather the bloody bouquets!
Soon now they will gaze on our Goddess of Justice
With her shimmering, glimmering blade
As she kisses these tyrants she will sing them a last serenade

PercyB on March 19, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Phew! Stupak is not relenting. I was worried.

andy85719 on March 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Me to andy, me too.

yoda on March 19, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Update: To put it differently, unless I misunderstood what Slaughter was aiming for, the Democrats liked her strategy originally precisely because they agreed with McConnell that you can’t split a merged bill once it’s passed. That was their leverage over Reid: Once they passed it, he had to match it by passing the fix. If he failed, splitting the House bill and sending Bill A only to Obama for signature wasn’t an option.

But … the Senate cannot do reconciliation on a non-existent law – and doing reconciliation with 51 votes (not passing a new bill)was the whole point of this specific tactic in the ongoing coup d’etat.

The dems have broken the laws and defied reason at every single turn of this coup (as happens with coups). They have shredded the Constitution in the content and the process and made a mockery of rationality.

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Love you too Mary, and all the effort you put into posting the contact info throughout the day.

You’re a remarkable gal. I may be 3k miles away but I hope to meet you on the front line.

Rod on March 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Thanks, you’re very kind, but SheetAnchor did the work on that contact list — I just helped spread it around a little.

I’ll be in Washington D.C. on April 15! Look for a large pitchfork. I’ll be the gal hanging onto it. ;-)

Mary in LA on March 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM

The forests will sing, the oceans will cry
The protests will soar through every sky
Sister Mary will carry the flame
While brother Rod will throw down the lightning and rain
Upon the dragon boats, the tyrants they will assail
Hotair’s battle-call will wail
Storming ashore with torches and pitchforks in hand
Claiming back our cherished land
To one day the tyrants will view the Mussolini Tree
And all hang from it the same as he

MB4 on March 19, 2010 at 9:00 PM

So in essence the House is creating a merged bill, which then must go back tot he Senate to be passed and then sent to the president, right?

So they cannot split the bill sending only one piece to the president. If I recall, the Supreme Court already ruled the line item veto was out … And this is in essence a similar way to do the same thing. In essence either House could line item veto the other house.

So they get the Senate bill as is, and no more.

So is anybody looking at a commerce clause challenge. This poor Constitution sentence has been warped, bent shaped spindled and mutilated out of anything close to it’s original intent. A slap down on the 10th would be nice and end the argument permanently.

What’s Obama going to do next, send troops against the American people.

tarpon on March 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM

We can only hope now that the Lilly livered Dems are bowing to God Obama.

PappyD61 on March 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Hey! Leave my liver out of this.

Lily on March 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM

So in essence the House is creating a merged bill, which then must go back to the Senate to be passed and then sent to the president, right?

tarpon on March 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM

No. That would require a normal vote in the Senate and wouldn’t make it past a filibuster. They are trying to have the Senate do reconciliation on a law that doesn’t exist. That is illegal but it’s what the dem junta wants to do.

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 9:06 PM

You have an interesting article. The question is after Roberts and his people were basically “MF’ed” in front of the country will their base desire to remind Obama that nothing is free be at work here? I was a detective for twenty years, here is the first rule you learn, never piss off the judge.

archer52 on March 19, 2010 at 9:06 PM

But if senate DOES pass Reconcilliation bill, then isn’t the issue moot? Then president signs matching bills. Then all is well in utopia.
If this is correct, then the only way Repubs can challenge is if Senate does not pass reconciliation, but this was the point of using Slaughter in the first place.
Someone please tell me I’m wrong.

topdog on March 19, 2010 at 9:06 PM

What’s Obama going to do next, send troops against the American people.

tarpon on March 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Troops? You mean thugs, as in SEIU and ACORN thugs, because our troops will eat his Marxist lunch if he gives them any such order. They hate him.

elduende on March 19, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Help Chief Justice Roberts, you are my only hope.

Holy ba-jezs-us if teh Supreme Court shot this down, coupled with Bush v. Gore, you can book 15 justices on the supreme court next Dem President. Get the amendment ready to lock the court at 9 justices.

WashJeff on March 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM

There is nothing wrong with your coming life. Do not attempt to adjust your income. My teleprompter and I will control your income. If we wish to make you richer, we will lift up your income. If we wish to make you poorer, we will crush you with taxes. Do not attempt to live your own life. We will control your life. If we wish we can reduce your life to a living Hell, or sharpen it to Heavenly wonderfulness. We will control your ups. We will control your downs. For the next four eight twelve sixteen twenty twenty four twenty eight thirty two thirty six years, sit quietly and obediently and we will control all that you see, hear and feel. You are about to experience the claw and misery which reaches from the inner delirium to THE OBAMA SOCIALIST FASCIST NATION UNLIMITED.
- Il ObamaDuce

MB4 on March 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM

tarpon on March 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Oops. Sorry about that, tarpon. You were correct, of course. I was just detailing what the dem junta is claiming they are going to do. My mistake.

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM

But if senate DOES pass Reconcilliation bill, then isn’t the issue moot? Then president signs matching bills. Then all is well in utopia.

topdog on March 19, 2010 at 9:06 PM

No. The Senate cannot do reconciliation on a non-existent law. It the Senate wants to pass a new bill then they have to get past a filibuster, which they can’t, which is why they are talking about illegally using reconciliation.

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 9:10 PM

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Yes, there would be a technical violation of filibuster rules, but that is not a constitutuional issue, and SCOTUS would not touch it. So only court of public opinion would factor in, and public would never understand such a subtle point, let alone get excited by it.

topdog on March 19, 2010 at 9:22 PM

IMPEACH OBAMA AND PELOSI

J.J. Sefton on March 19, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Keep hope alive hell, keep sharpening your damn pitchforks.

Dave R. on March 19, 2010 at 9:33 PM

1. He signs a bill into law that wasn’t voted on.
2. Supreme Court strikes down the law as unconstitutional
3. Impeach this narcissistic r*tf**k moron for failing to uphold his oath of office.

CC

CapedConservative on March 19, 2010 at 9:33 PM

tarpon at 9:02
People are wondering what our military would do under those circumstances. General Casey’s recent and stunningly PC statements have caused concern to many who once believed that the US military would not fire on Americans.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 19, 2010 at 9:36 PM

CapedCon at 9:33
Signing into law what is later determined to unconstitutional is not an impeachable offense.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM

I’m putting my money toward the law suit that Levin is starting…

lovingmyUSA on March 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM

There’s more then one lawsuit going to happen if the Dems do this. Idaho Governor is also got one ready. State Legislatures have been preparing for this too. (37-38)

elclynn on March 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Should be: “later determined to be unconstitutional”.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM

The censoring here is becoming boring. It may be time to create a replacement for Hot Air, and watch Salems investment wither and die.

mrpeabody on March 19, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Hey, is this thing working?

mastercylinder on March 19, 2010 at 9:53 PM

As for the separation of powers argument that the court shouldn’t and won’t second-guess Congress on its own procedures,
Huh? Explicit Constitutional demands of Congress are not “Congress on its own procedures”.

neurosculptor on March 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM

That’s correct. Article I, Section 7 defines and limits the role of both houses re a vote in the passage of a bill into law.

onlineanalyst on March 19, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2