Can the House “deem” a bill into law?

posted at 1:00 pm on April 2, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Republicans screeched when Louise Slaughter attempted to push a “deem and pass” strategy for ObamaCare a little over a year ago, arguing that the notion of deeming the bill as passed in the House without a direct floor vote was an affront to democracy and the Constitution.  Democrats agreed — in 2003, when Republicans tried the same thing on a tax-credit measure.  In the end, Democrats abandoned “deem and pass” as a strategy after less than a week and held a floor vote on ObamaCare instead, which passed.

Republicans swore to restore Constitutional processes if returned to the majority in the House.  They’re not off to a great start.  They have revived deem and pass, with a twist — instead of claiming that a bill has passed, the GOP voted that a House bill would be deemed as effective law if the Senate failed to act (via David Brauer):

The House narrowly passed legislation on Friday that calls for a House-passed FY 2011 spending bill to become law should the Senate fail to approve a spending bill by April 6. It would also prevent members of Congress from being paid during a government shutdown.

The bill, H.R. 1255, was approved over bitter Democratic opposition in a 221-202 vote in which no Democrats supported it, and 15 Republicans opposed it.

Several Democrats argued that the measure is unconstitutional, charging that it would “deem” that the 2011 spending bill, H.R. 1, has the force of law if the Senate fails to act. Some Democrats seized on the floor comments from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who broke with his party and said on the floor that this aspect of the bill “violates my conscious and the Constitution, and I cannot vote for it.”

Gohmert’s right.  The process of making law under the Constitution isn’t exactly a secret.  Article I, Section 7 clearly states in unequivocal language that bills do not have the force of law until either a President signs a bill passed in both chambers, or both chambers override a Presidential veto by two-thirds majorities in both chambers, emphases mine:

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

In other words, a House bill has no legal effect whatsoever, unless the Senate also passes it.  A lack of action by the Senate does not allow the House to declare that a bill has suddenly acquired the status of law.  For a party that promised that every bill under its majority would have attached to it an avowal of constitutionality, this is an egregious mistake.

Still, there’s no small amount of irony in hearing Nancy “you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” Pelosi and former deem-and-pass defender Steny Hoyer complain about this new twist on the old racket:

“What you see on the floor today is no example of Democracy in action,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. “It’s silly. The Republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vote.”

“April Fools, America,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. “This is a joke, America. This is not real, America.”

No, it’s not real at all.  Republicans need to stop the foolishness and act in accordance with the Constitution.

Update: Here’s the roll call vote.


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

Republicans need to stop the foolishness and act in accordance with the Constitution.

Word to yo’ Mama.

quikstrike98 on April 2, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Republicans need to stop the foolishness and act in accordance with the Constitution.

Please forgive me for not holding my breath.

oldleprechaun on April 2, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Act IAW the Constitution and hang the flaming tire around Harry Reid’s neck (metaphorically speaking, of course)…

Blame the DIMocrats for the government shutdown; they are the ones that want it!

Khun Joe on April 2, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Mark down the name of every “Representative” who supports this measure – regardless of party – and be sure to vote against them in the next election cycle. This is absolutely the problem with having career politicians without term limits, right here ya’ll.

KMC1 on April 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM

How about tit for tat and then call the whole thing off.

We deem obamacare null and void by the the ‘deem’ process, and then we start from scratch.

katy on April 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM

…any immigrant knows that!

lexhamfox on April 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Sounds like the House needs to reread the Constitution. Again.

Stupid party back to being stupid.

rbj on April 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM

katy on April 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM

In other words..two wrong do make a right!

katy on April 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM

This is stupid. Jeebus.

ladyingray on April 2, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I remarked on this the other day. It is just like something the stupid Democrats would do. It was not only a waste of time but worse, a waste of Republican credibility. That’s already in short supply, they can’t afford to lose more.

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM

When the GOP took control of the House, they said that they would include in everything they passed the part of the Constitution that gave them the authority to do it. What was the justification given for this?

Mark1971 on April 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Once again proving that there isn’t a dimes difference between the two parties.

darwin-t on April 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Americans are scroomed, from all 360 degrees, by their ‘representatives’.

Throw all the thugs out, from all directions.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Mr. Morrissey, do we have a roll call on this vote?

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Everything should be voted on and maybe this will stop the naming of post offices after their big contributors. Let the PO decide names. Continuing resolutions should also be outlawed. Do the jobs we are paying you to do.

Kissmygrits on April 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Hoyer and Pelosi really have room to talk.

GarandFan on April 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Mr. Morrissey, do we have a roll call on this vote?

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I read an article at The Hill yesterday that listed the Republicans who voted against it. You could probably find it if you look there.

Mark1971 on April 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I guess the Republicans want to be primaried. Two wrongs don’t make a right and they’d better stop these shenannigans.

Key West Reader on April 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Mr. Morrissey, do we have a roll call on this vote?

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll224.xml

KSgop on April 2, 2011 at 1:15 PM

This is really incredibly stupid thing for any Republican to sign onto, and the fact that only 15 repubs stood against it is astonishing. Do we have to vote the entire republican caucus out next election and start over? I am truly dismayed by this unconstitutional action, especially after all the unconstitutional democrat actions over the past four years.
Please post the Honor Roll of the 15 Republicans who stood guard over the Constitution and voted against this travesty.

eaglewingz08 on April 2, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Just dumb. How much time did we spend (rightfully) arguing against “deem and pass”, and how they do this? New boss same as the old boss. *sigh*

KSgop on April 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Republicans voting “no” were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Michael Burgess (Texas), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Richard Hanna (NY), Walter Jones (NC), Dan Lungren (Calif.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Reid Ribble (Wis.), Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), and James Sensenbrenner (Wis.). Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) was the only member of the House to vote “present.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/153355-house-gop-approves-budget-bill-ignores-dem-constitutional-arguments

Mark1971 on April 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

s/how/now/

KSgop on April 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I added a link to the roll call vote in an update.

Ed Morrissey on April 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

At least the Dems wanted to deem something passed that had already passed the Senate. Sheesh, what are these Republicans thinking? Wait, I know that they’re thinking they’ll be blamed for a government shutdown just like in ’95. What a bunch of morons. The circumstances are completely different. Here’s a good case for term limits: you wouldn’t have people who were around sixteen years ago letting those experiences affect their judgment today.

Kafir on April 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Wait, I know that they’re thinking they’ll be blamed for a government shutdown just like in ’95.

And even if they are…WHO CARES?! This country is in the fiscal mess that it’s in because the only thing politicians are worried about is the next election. We want you to go to Washington to DO WHAT IS RIGHT, not to tip-toe around and try to appease everyone while really accomplishing nothing. If you have to cast the vote that is the right thing to do, but it may be political suicide, so be it. You have no right to sit in that seat for 30 years like you own it. We elected you to do a job and we expect you to DO IT. You are not our kings, you are our REPRESENTATIVES.

KSgop on April 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM

They really are afraid of a shut-down. Why?

SouthernGent on April 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Thanks everyone! You are the best.

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Shame on those Republicans, and someone please smack Nancy Pelosi in the chops.

Thanks in advance.

Midas on April 2, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) was the only member of the House to vote “present.”

Pretty sick-to-f@#$ing-death of spineless f@#$wits voting ‘present’, too.

Midas on April 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM

For a party that promised that every bill under its majority would have attached to it an avowal of constitutionality, this is an egregious mistake.

No, no, no, no, NO! We are not THEM!

I expect better of Republicans.

iurockhead on April 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM

I added a link to the roll call vote in an update.

Ed Morrissey on April 2, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Thanks, Ed. I just fired off a note to my Congressman asking him if he had lost his mind when he voted for this crap.

Kafir on April 2, 2011 at 1:28 PM

hang the flaming tire around Harry Reid’s neck

Now Joe, if you’re going to write such things I do hope you live in Wisconsin. The Cheeseheads don’t seem to be offended by such things. At least their D.A.’s offices.

oldleprechaun on April 2, 2011 at 1:28 PM

No point in voting anymore, seriously. Why bother? Time for the next solution; this one isn’t working.

Midas on April 2, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Check the roll call at the end of the post. If your congressman voted for this idiocy, let them know how you feel about it. I’m sending a note to Conoway right now, and (if he reads it) he will not like it.

iurockhead on April 2, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Bachmann voted for this. There goes her so-called ‘Constitutional’ creds.

ladyingray on April 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Just sent an email to my local doofus.

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Midas on April 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Aahhhh, a presidential candidate! You must be so proud!

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Are we sure this was not an April Fools joke???? I find it hard to believe that with all the “getting back to the Constitution rhetoric” that they would be stupid enough to really pull this. Something really smells here.

retiredeagle on April 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM

The House GOP is defending the constitutionality of this by saying that it doesn’t automatically make HR 1 deemed into law. The Senate would also have to be pass it in order for this to happen. But the reason for this resolution in the first place is because the Senate won’t vote on HR 1. So why would they even vote for a bill that deems it passed? This is lame.

Mark1971 on April 2, 2011 at 1:50 PM

WTF?

trigon on April 2, 2011 at 1:53 PM

C’mon Repubs! Get your freaking head in the game! Sheesh

Weight of Glory on April 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM

What good is a fair fight when the other side has absolutely no intention of playing fair?

It’s apparent that the Demtards could care less about the U.S. Constitution (especially under this regime) and only squawk about it when it doesn’t suit their purposes.

I’m not advocating that we should be as blatantly UNConstitutional as they have been, but when do you realize that we will never win this war if we don’t bring the proverbial gun to the knife fight?

The gloves should be off and let the chips fall where they may.

Flyboy on April 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Bachmann voted for this.

ladyingray on April 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM

heh.

crr6 on April 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Yea. Nice. So were going to act like the progressive left now and emulate one of the most controversial tactics the left tried to use with healthcare. What a bunch of F*&cking idiots. I just let Kinzinger have a piece of my mind. Must not like his new job too much.

CriticalUpdate on April 2, 2011 at 1:57 PM

This is just depressing.

Ron Paul (Aack!) votes NO and the GOP largely votes YES including Michelle Bachmann.

sharrukin on April 2, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Folks, we need to treat them like children. They obviously need some training.

Cindy Munford on April 2, 2011 at 2:00 PM

The GOProgressives will betray us.

darwin-t on April 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM

The House narrowly passed legislation on Friday that calls for a House-passed FY 2011 spending bill to become law should the Senate fail to approve a spending bill by April 6.

Do these morons even understand how our government works, by prescription of the friggin’ CONSTITUTION?

How do I rescind my Republican Party membership?

Idiots.

~~~~~walks off muttering insanely~~~~~

hillbillyjim on April 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

A little surprising to see Pence and Ryan with the ayes.

Proud Rino on April 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

I deem that Ed Morrissey wil be President in 2012.

See how easy that was?

percysunshine on April 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

A little surprising to see Pence and Ryan with the ayes.

Proud Rino on April 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

A little surprising to see you show your “face” after your noticeable absence from all of the foreign policy threads.

hillbillyjim on April 2, 2011 at 2:19 PM

A little surprising to see Pence and Ryan with the ayes.

Proud Rino on April 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

A little surprising to see you show your “face” after your noticeable absence from all of the foreign policy threads.

hillbillyjim on April 2, 2011 at 2:19 PM

IOW, we welcome you and your tiny nutsack back into the fold.

hillbillyjim on April 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Extremely disappointing to say the least!

The last thing we need to do is encourage the Democrats the next time they get power. If we’re going to act like little dictators than we can’t complain about the Democrats. Process is important. We have to be a nation of laws. Congress must follow proper procedure and the law! Stupid Republicans!

If Republicans are going to “deem and pass” then, for that matter.. why shouldn’t Obama just “deem and sign!” He can rightly then point to the Republicans and say “I got the idea from them!”

JellyToast on April 2, 2011 at 2:26 PM

So stupid Republicans aren’t really for constitutional government or against tyranny! They are just against Democrat tyranny! Republican tyranny in the name of “good things” is fine and dandy!

Republicans can’t seem to find the proper rule that would de-fund ObamaCare but somehow “deem and pass” is ok?

Now they have no excuse! Strip funding of ObamaCare if you want to spend some political capital!

JellyToast on April 2, 2011 at 2:32 PM

What a nightmare this government has become.

jawkneemusic on April 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Mark Levin will stroke out when he talks about this Monday night.

ladyingray on April 2, 2011 at 2:57 PM

This is the best and only way the house can prevent a shutdown. They can not do anything to prevent it as they have done all they are required and constitutionally able to do. When there is a shutdown it will be the fault of the 53s D Senate.

But if yet unlikely the senate votes yea for this bill with O signing it and HR 1255 becomes law then HR 1 become law without the senate voting for HR 1

tjexcite on April 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM

crr6, the Rs decry this crap.

When are you going to do so for all the crap from your side?

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM

The ’86 machine gun ban was made into law without getting a majority of vote.

Will the SCOTUS void these kind of laws?

jdun on April 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM

If the GOP was to do the deem and pass they would be voting to change the law even before the bill is law. As I can see that is not what this bill is. It just makes a bill that is sitting in purgatory that will prevent a shutdown law if this bill becomes law.

tjexcite on April 2, 2011 at 3:05 PM

I deem that Ed Morrissey wil be President in 2012.

See how easy that was?

percysunshine on April 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Yeah, that ain’t happening, either. ;-)

Ed Morrissey on April 2, 2011 at 3:09 PM

A little surprising to see you show your “face” after your noticeable absence from all of the foreign policy threads.

hillbillyjim on April 2, 2011 at 2:19 PM

LOL. Yeah, you know me, always backing down from conflicts and arguments.

What do you want to talk about?

Proud Rino on April 2, 2011 at 3:11 PM

A little surprising to see Pence and Ryan with the ayes.

Proud Rino on April 2, 2011 at 2:16 PM

The whole damn party voted aye.

ernesto on April 2, 2011 at 3:19 PM

The whole damn party voted aye.

ernesto on April 2, 2011 at 3:19 PM

No they didn’t. Most but not all.

sharrukin on April 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM

While I pretty much agree with every point made in the blog I cannot help cheering the outcome.

Breaking! One Hundred and Eighty Seven Democrats vote NO on Government Shutdown Prevention Act

Ain’t payback a bitch? :o)

DannoJyd on April 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Please, this doesn’t do us any favors. Maybe as a message to the Democrats that they reap what they sow, but other than that, to borrow a term from the Obummer administration, this is just bad optics.

AZfederalist on April 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Please, this doesn’t do us any favors. Maybe as a message to the Democrats that they reap what they sow, but other than that, to borrow a term from the Obummer administration, this is just bad optics.

AZfederalist on April 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

I absolutely disagree.

While I am amongst those who admit that this is entirely unconstitutional, this DOES shine the light on how the Democrats have done NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE to avert a Government Shutdown.

Democrats want to label Republicans as being extremists. Well, how EXTREME is it when 187 Democrats vote NO on a bill titled the Government Shutdown Prevention Act?:o)

DannoJyd on April 2, 2011 at 4:06 PM

They read the thing in January — didn’t they listen? By doing this, they have overwhelmed the message that they acted with one that says they acted unConstitutionally.

unclesmrgol on April 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Democrats want to label Republicans as being extremists. Well, how EXTREME is it when 187 Democrats vote NO on a bill titled the Government Shutdown Prevention Act?:o)

DannoJyd on April 2, 2011 at 4:06 PM

The CYA part is the unConstititonal part. Those Democrats have been given cover to vote “no” — they can point to the language Ed is castigating in his post. And it will work — we know it will.

As my betters have already said,

this is just bad optics.

AZfederalist on April 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

unclesmrgol on April 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Will the SCOTUS void these kind of laws?

jdun on April 2, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Probably not, no.

crr6 on April 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM

It’s time to throw them all out.

sadatoni on April 2, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Disappointed in Bachman, and West over this. Maybe they need to take that constitution class again.

DFCtomm on April 2, 2011 at 6:11 PM

unclesmrgol on April 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM

As the discussion will eventually boil down to the Government Shutdown, how well will the talking point that the Democrats voted against the Government Shutdown Prevention Act?

Americans get bored with the facts, thus I believe it remains a great talking point for WHEN the Democrats shut down the Government. ;o)

DannoJyd on April 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM

It’s time to throw them all out. 0bama 2012!

sadatoni on April 2, 2011 at 5:17 PM

FIFY. ;o)

DannoJyd on April 2, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Disappointed in Bachman, and West over this. Maybe they need to take that constitution class again.

DFCtomm on April 2, 2011 at 6:11 PM

More to the point, where were the Democrats making the Constitutional point? Oh yeah! The Constitution is BORING, and that explains why SOME Democrats seized on the floor comments from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). You see, they didn’t have a CLUE until Louie brought it to their attention! LMAO!

DannoJyd on April 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM

BACHMANN VOTED FOR THIS??

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

SagebrushPuppet on April 2, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I am going to go read the text of this bill. But I do not believe that it can say this and so many R’s voted yes.

WTF?

BierManVA on April 2, 2011 at 6:49 PM

(a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011- If the House has not received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.

So in essence, if the Senate passes this same bill and the President signs it, they say that their inaction on HR1 is moot the Senate and President are agreeing to enact HR1.

Tricky legalese for sure. And stupid.

BierManVA on April 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM

When I first heard it yesterday, I wondered what the House must have been smoking. On further reflection, I really believe our stalwart House is on to something, otherwise, Dingy and the other donks wouldn’t be squealing so much. After all, if Dean, Schmucky & Wheezer are begging for a shutdown, I say let’s do it, because that’s exactly where they don’t want to go.

Dare I say, you all may be hyperventilating a little too much against those who supported this so-called deeming a bill into law.

I’m not a lawyer, but I think I understand plain English about as well as I can read the Constitution and understand what it is saying. Just as we pro-lifers can see that fetuses are protected by the inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, while the pro-abortion can ‘see’ the explicit right to privacy of the mother.

Consider Clinton’s “what is is” and apply his semantics to the definition of “shall” and “may”.

Shall:
(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.

May:
a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from “shall” which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word “may” must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word “shall.” Non-lawyers tend to see the word “may” and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation.

With 21 ‘shalls’ and only 2 ‘mays’; depending on the context of the below, one could argue that herein the ‘shalls’ are imperative while the ‘mays’ don’t quite reach the level of an imperative, rather highly recommended.

Re-read the below and see if you detect any emanations…

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Here the FF are saying that only the House can originate a revenue bill. But the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

The semantics are no less tedious as when the libs argue that the 2nd amendment applies only to militias and not the citizen.

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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

2 points: 1) The above paragraph is mainly about overriding a POTUS veto. And that POTUS has to return it to the house that originated the portion he found objectionable. Secondly, even if HR1 made it thru both houses and POTUS vetoed it, then what is the effective budget law, if they can’t override the veto?

Normally, the house would have to rewrite it to something amenable to POTUS. In the case of HR1, it hasn’t even passed the Senate and as a result, we’re on the brink of a shutdown. What does the Constitution even say about our current scenario?

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Put it this way, if the Govt is shutdown for an indeterminate length of time, what is the operating budget? Thanks to the Donks, we don’t have a budget for 2011.

Should the govt use the 2010 budget as their operative benchmark or should they use HR1 which originated in the House as proscribed by the above? This is not a theoretical issue as the likelihood of a shutdown is real without a budget beyond next week.

I don’t think the House really meant that ‘deeming’ is the same as the law. However, the House DID originate a bill, but the Senate refused to concur or provide amendments, let alone even put it to vote. As a result, the govt shuts down w/o a budget, now what?

Yes a lot of stuff does stop, but what of the essentials? Do the soldiers put down their weapons and stop fighting until whenever the congress reconvenes to tackle the budget? During the shutdown, the House could conceivably propose another CR to keep only the essentials going

Perhaps here is where the GOP is ‘deeming that HR1 is the same as law’, in that the Govt will be effectively shutdown until such a point where the budgetary targets will have been met, before the House will take up a replacement to HR1.

Here’s a thot, how long would we need a shutdown until we’ve cut $100 billion from this year’s budget? Maybe, depending on public sentiment, we may even be able to shut down long enough to reach Rand’s proposal to cut $500 billion. How sweet would that be? In that case, count me in.

I also appreciate the effort to stop all pay of the congress until a budget is passed.

Yes, clawing back some of POTUS’ pay would be unconstitutional, but then again, why not put it on the table and dare Obambi and the Senate to blink and cave first, rather than them try to challenge the ‘deeming the HR1 as law’ in court. After all, how many times has the courts found something in the law that was all but invisible to us rubes? Eminent domain, anyone? How about Judge Sumi? Again, listen to the donks braying — reminds me much like throwing a rock into a pack of dogs and actually hitting more than a few.

Strategery-wise, this is a worthwhile effort. And I for one am not looking for any of our stalwarts in the House to rush out and explain their apparent hypocrisy just yet. Better to let the donks stew a while yet on tomorrow’s talk-show circuit.

AH_C on April 2, 2011 at 7:26 PM

I’m not a lawyer, but I think I understand plain English about as well as I can read the Constitution and understand what it is saying. Just as we pro-lifers can see that fetuses are protected by the inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, while the pro-abortion can ‘see’ the explicit right to privacy of the mother.

I’m pretty sure you can’t see that in the Constitution, since it’s actually in the Declaration of Independence.

crr6 on April 2, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I’m pretty sure you can’t see that in the Constitution, since it’s actually in the Declaration of Independence.

crr6 on April 2, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Just as I’m pretty sure that you can’t see the right to privacy of the mother to abort her fetus in ANY of the founding documents/papers. As to be expected, you zero in on the snark and not the content of my post. Not that you ever say anything unexpected of a libtard.

AH_C on April 2, 2011 at 8:42 PM

The House narrowly passed legislation on Friday….

This piece of legislation needs to pass through that same Constitutional process to become law. Therefore, it is symbolic only; the Senate will never pass it, and the President will not sign it even if they did. They don’t have the 2/3 to override, should it ever get that far.

Lose/lose all around. Boehner needs to get a spine and let the government shut down.

But I must say, I do like the part about Congress not getting paid should there be a shutdown. That alone could be a huge “cut” or savings – depending on how long it lasted. :D

DINORight on April 2, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Just as I’m pretty sure that you can’t see the right to privacy of the mother to abort her fetus in ANY of the founding documents/papers. As to be expected, you zero in on the snark and not the content of my post. Not that you ever say anything unexpected of a libtard.

AH_C on April 2, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Ah, come on. Lighten up.

crr6 on April 2, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I thought of this as more of a stance than deem and pass. A stance stating that we will stand by and vote for this budget if no other budget is available or not to their liking. That explain why most of the repubs voted for this including the conservative members. There could be no other reason that the conservative members voted for this other than that they are hypocrites and i do not think that they are hypocrites cause IMHO some of these members would not betray their ideals.

pb88 on April 2, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Idiots. They had something remotely like the moral high ground, and gave it up. Or trampled on it, whichever.

Freelancer on April 3, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Damn politicians.

davidk on April 3, 2011 at 3:02 AM

AH_C on April 2, 2011 at 8:42 PM

The purpose of our government is made clear by the Declaration of Independence. The form of our government is established by the Constitution. These founding documents cannot be properly understood if separated from each other. This is beyond the comprehension of the Left.

DrMagnolias on April 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Also the 5th and 14th Amendments’ DPCs refer to “life, liberty, and property,” fwiw.

The purpose of our government is made clear by the Declaration of Independence. The form of our government is established by the Constitution. These founding documents cannot be properly understood if separated from each other. This is beyond the comprehension of the Left.

DrMagnolias on April 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

I think the DOI is important as a reference point but it absolutely does not have the force of law. The United States ratified the Constitution, they did not ratify the DOI (No USA at that point). Trying to put extra things into the Constitution so that it says what you like it to say is a hallmark of an activist judiciary and used to generally be associated with liberals. That seems to be less and less the case these days, Alito.

Proud Rino on April 3, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The purpose of our government is made clear by the Declaration of Independence. The form of our government is established by the Constitution.

DrMagnolias on April 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Actually the Constitution has a little “purpose” section too. It’s right in the beginning; I’m not sure how you missed it.

crr6 on April 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Actually the Constitution has a little “purpose” section too. It’s right in the beginning; I’m not sure how you missed it.

crr6 on April 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I take it by your silence that you have no rebuttal to the GOP House notion that come shutdown after the 06 Apr deadline, HR1 has the net effect of being deemed into law.

With the shutdown and no budgetary guidance, every budget manager must necessarily default their plans to that as outlined in HR1 on the assumption that if the Senate gives up and concurs with the House, they will have stayed within the budget. If the House relents and adds funding, then the bureaucrat simply has more money to spend before 30 Sep.

AH_C on April 3, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Proud Rino on April 3, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Of course it does not have the force of law. It provides the context for the Constitution–it gives the reasoning for the government of which the Constitution is a blueprint. The two are not divorced.

crr6 on April 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Child, I know you believe that petulant snark is a substitute for intelligent conversation, but it really isn’t. If you haven’t noticed, fewer people engage in conversation with you, and it is not because your insight, knowledge, and wisdom are particularly impressive. The laughter ought to be a clue.

DrMagnolias on April 3, 2011 at 8:47 PM

H.R. 1255 is a funding bill and it has a provision deeming the comprehensive appropriations of H.R. 1 to be enacted law. The whole point was to give government agencies some guidance in the event of a shutdown. Of course the Constitution calls for passage in each house and approval by POTUS — but what do you do if there is an impasse and dysfunctional government shuts down? There’s going to be a whole lot of unauthorized spending going on. This bill is better than nothing for giving the executive branch some implied authority to spend during the shutdown. It also gives the Senate a roadmap to work from for undoing the shutdown. Ed needs to cut the GOP leadership some slack — his Fri & Sat TEMS comments on this topic are cheap shots.

Mark30339 on April 3, 2011 at 9:43 PM

The House passes a spending bill and the Senate takes no action on it. Whose fault is it when the government shuts down in this case?

If the House votes against raising the debt ceiling, who decides what to pay first out of the limited budget? Can the House specify that interest must be paid first?

flataffect on April 3, 2011 at 11:39 PM

If the US legislature can deem a bill to have passed, can I not simply deem that I’ve paid my federal taxes, even when I really haven’t?

Inquiring minds want to know “why not“?

Oh, yeah… I forgot that “rank” has its privilege, and the US congress is about as rank as dead fish on a calm, sunny summer day.

electric-rascal on April 4, 2011 at 12:27 AM

I have an argument that the bill is actually constitutional, here.

I did not come to this easily. As you will see if you follow the link, I initially shared Ed’s disdain for the bill and the Republicans who voted for it. But my commenters have convinced me that I was wrong.

It is a subtle argument and it takes time to digest. When I first saw it, I reacted harshly and dismissively. But read it over and give it some time. You might be surprised.

Patterico on April 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM