Comments on: Former federal judge: Yes, the Slaughter strategy is unconstitutional

By: Help MO-04 clean the "Skeleton" out of its closet!!! (Part 2) | The RIGHT Opinions

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:52:31 +0000

[...] tactic was popularly referred to as the “Slaughter Strategy”. House observers agreed that it would be unconstitutional to avoid a direct vote on the legislation. It would also be unconstitutional to hold only one [...]

By: What’s Next? « UP DOWN DOWN UP

What’s Next? « UP DOWN DOWN UP — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:58:31 +0000

[...] that still have to happen. And it really isn’t outside the realm of possibility that the Supreme Court rules that the bill signed by the President had in fact only passed the Senate, which would mean that [...]

By: Dems Dropping Slaughter Rule « UP DOWN DOWN UP

Dems Dropping Slaughter Rule « UP DOWN DOWN UP — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:53:20 +0000

[...] not be. What has been pointed out recently is that the whole purpose of the Slaughter Rule was to require the Senate to approve the amendments sans filibuster before it could be sent to the President for his signature. Apparently going into [...]

By: The Temple Of Doom — Hillary Is 44

The Temple Of Doom — Hillary Is 44 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:14:30 +0000

[...] What if the Rules Committee passes the Obamaination health scam by taking the Demon Pass shortcut? Former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Michael McConnell (a Republican conservative) explains: “The House will likely adopt a “self-executing” rule that “deems” passage of the amendatory bill as enactment of the Senate bill, without an actual vote on the latter. [...]

By: The Odious Debt of Barack Obama or Lies and Liability « Natural Fake

The Odious Debt of Barack Obama or Lies and Liability « Natural Fake — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:34:20 +0000

[...] we now find ourselves as a nation under a blatantly unConstitutional assault by President Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and over 200 House members to pass a vanity project of [...]

By: Obamacare, Slaughter, and Stupak « The Republican Heretic

Obamacare, Slaughter, and Stupak « The Republican Heretic — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:29:30 +0000

[...] Clarice Feldman, also at American Thinker, discusses the possible intervention of the Supreme Court should congress resort to the Slaughter Rule: Stanford Constitutional law professor Michael McConnell,whose argument that the Slaughter Rule is unconstitutional we cited to the other day, explains that the Constitution forbids the Slaughter rule technique and argues that while the Supreme Court normally avoids interfering with Congressional Rules, this is far different. [...]

By: blink

blink — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:31:41 +0000

It’s perfectly constitutional. See Marshall Field v. Clark (1892).

crr6 on March 20, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Yes. So is slavery. See Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

By: VikingGoneWild

VikingGoneWild — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:46:04 +0000

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

Does anyone have a link so I could read these comments?

I remember correctly McArthur was in charge of troops that fired on civilians around WW1 in Washington.

By: Extrafishy

Extrafishy — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:42:23 +0000

Nancy is hitting 70 and I think we all should tell her how much we are going to enjoy pissing on her grave!

tim c on March 20, 2010

Does Botox stay in the tissues after death?

By: tim c

tim c — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:45:45 +0000

Nancy is hitting 70 and I think we all should tell her how much we are going to enjoy pissing on her grave!

By: CapedConservative

CapedConservative — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:31:23 +0000

Signing into law what is later determined to unconstitutional is not an impeachable offense.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Of course it isn’t. However, knowingly violating the Constitution is. The Constitution aren’t simply a set of suggestions. The only issue in his case would be “knowingly”.

Lefty loons have a small number of common traits. First and foremost, they follow “feelings” instead of logic, reason and empirical evidence. This is followed closely the need to describe like-minded people as “smart”. Yet, their very words betray the notion that they have an IQ above their shoe size…..

Obama is just the typical example. Very smart… very articulate…. but, without the TelePrompTer, we get “57 states”, “speak Rumanian”, his parents meeting and marching in Selma (years after he was born). Being cunning or sly is far from the same thing as being intelligent. Pelosi and Obama saying the same thing a little differently…. “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it”. What utter bullsh!t.

All you have to do is review the “Obamateurisms” on this site to see how absolutely inept and clueless this man and his speech writers for the ‘PrompTer’ truly are.

By: Friendly21

Friendly21 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:31:10 +0000

When are you guys going to understand that Impeachment alone is meaningless? It is only Conviction and Removal in the Senate which counts for anything more than a politcial circus and media event.

This whole push for Impeachment sounds very much like the crowd which voted in the 2008 election for Hussein and the Democrates to “teach the Republicans a lesson”. How’s that work out? Do you imagine Impeachment would work better?

There is no way in hell the the Senate would convict, even if the Republicans took both Houses.

By: hillbillyjim

hillbillyjim — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:39:22 +0000

Somebody needs to inform these people that our Constitution is not a plaything.

By: trigon

trigon — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:18:58 +0000

You have to give this congress some credit. They’ve actually invented a new form of pornography.

By: DSchoen

DSchoen — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:52:44 +0000

mrpeabody on March 19, 2010 at 9:58 PM

lighten up Francis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM

By: schmuck281

schmuck281 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:39:19 +0000

We’re arguing about whether the Democrats are complying with the rules of the game. The problem is, we’re playing gin and they’re playing rugby.

The rules only matter if you recognize them.

By: schmuck281

schmuck281 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:26:54 +0000

Everyone seems to be missing what the Democrats are doing. They’re going to pass this monstrosity, rules be damned.

They’re going to come up with some flimsy pretense and just pretend that it passed. They’re going to send it to the President and he’s just going to pretend it passed and sign it.

Then they’re just going to implement it…since it passed and is now the law.

It’s been the only rule since Obama got elected. Damn the rules, forget the polls, full speed ahead and dissenters overboard.

By: crr6

crr6 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:42:49 +0000

It’s perfectly constitutional. See Marshall Field v. Clark (1892).

crr6 on March 20, 2010 at 12:37 AM

More accurately, it’s not justiciable. In any event, Ed already wrote about it in the linked post.

By: crr6

crr6 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:37:13 +0000

It's perfectly constitutional. See Marshall Field v. Clark (1892).

By: Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:21:02 +0000

The left reacted to his piece by noting that “deem and pass” has been used before…

Um…so what? Just because this legislative process hasn’t been challenged yet doesn’t mean it is constitutional.

By: Hard Right

Hard Right — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:44:24 +0000

Mr Peabody, way to prove that being a liberal sooo isn’t proof of being mentally ill (roll eyes).

Just an FYI you half-wit troll. Their site, their rules. They want to remove your hate filled rants, then it’s their call. Just like I don’t get to come into your house and verbally abuse you, you don’t get to come into theirs and do the same. That isn’t censorship you whiny, narcissistic, pissant.

By: More Healthcare Updates | A Small Corner of Sanity

More Healthcare Updates | A Small Corner of Sanity — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:30:37 +0000

[...] And last but certainly NOT least…. Former federal judge: Yes, the Slaughter strategy is unconstitutional posted at 8:05 pm on March 19, 2010 by Allahpundit [...]

By: blink

blink — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:26:06 +0000

So what are all these vote counts for?

I thought they were for the actual Senate bill – which is why Reid is promising to fix the bill after it’s signed by Obama.

If these vote counts are merely for the AB bill, then I feel much better. I think the legal challenges will protect us. The Courts might not be able to jump into it, but if someone (or a state) sued, then the Courts would be forced to get involved.

By: fullogas

fullogas — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:58:53 +0000

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aatjerFCRP8&feature=related

By: “Deem, Pass and Split” | RedState

“Deem, Pass and Split” | RedState — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:57:43 +0000

[...] According to Allahpundit, “The left reacted to his [first] 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.” Exactly! Go read McConnell’s March 20 column for details. [...]