Reply With Quote
She destroyed your prior thread in only 3 posts? She must be an effective troll!
From extremist right-wing hate site, Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-b..._b_502371.html
The president and the Democratic congressional leadership are fighting furiously to pass, with no Republican votes, the ever-less-popular health bill. An Associated Press poll last week shows that four in five Americans don't want the Democrats to pass a health care bill without bipartisan support, while almost all polls are showing support for the current bill to be at only 25 percent to 35 percent. And all polls show high negative intensity.
The resistance of our governing system to passing so unpopular a bill is so powerful that it has driven Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairwoman of the Rules Committee Louise Slaughter -- at least for the moment -- to actually publicly consider violating the cons utional process for enacting laws.
Under their announced scheme, instead of following the cons utional voting process -- i.e., 1) The House first votes for the despised Senate bill, then 2) after that is signed into law by the president and 3) the Senate passes the popular amendments that the House wants, 4) the House votes for that second Senate bill of amendments, which, 5) the President then signs into law -- under the proposed scheme, the Senate bill would be "deemed" to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature. Then the Senate would pass the House-demanded amendments, and the House members would then cast only one vote -- for the amendments they like, rather than the underlying Senate bill they hate. Thus (so Pelosi's theory holds) politically protecting House members, who could say they never actually voted for the publicly despised Senate bill.
But, as has been pointed out in several venues in the last few days, Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Cons ution requires that before a bill becomes law, (1) "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"; and, (2) "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."
It is those two provisions of the Cons ution that would be evaded: 1) the House vote, with the names and votes of the individual members publicly published, and 2) the President's signature. That is James Madison's precise 18th century version of transparency and accountability.
The Supreme Court has only recently emphasized that those procedures must be followed precisely. In Clinton v. New York City, 1998, (In which the court found the line-item veto as passed by Congress uncons utional), Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion:
"The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page do ent that became 'Public Law 105-33' after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Cons ution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may 'become a law.'" Article I, Section 7.
And: "The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Cons ution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only 'be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.' Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951."
Some have argued that the "Gephardt Rule" (House Rule XXVII) -- in which a similar "self-executing rule" "deemed" the House to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent. Wrong. That rule was for a joint resolution -- not a bill. A joint resolution is a guide to the House. It is not a bill under the Cons ution and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill.
It speaks to the sturdiness of the system our founders installed that it is, as intended, so resistant to passing major legal and cultural changes against the overwhelming will of the public. So resistant that, in frustration, the Democratic speaker of the House has been driven to consider breaking her oath of office and violate the Cons ution in order to get her way. Presumably, when she is better counseled, she will dismiss this wayward idea.
Should she follow through on her threat, however, the product would not be a law, but a nullity -- an aborted, inert thing.
It would be, in essence, an attempted congressional putsch against the Cons ution.
But still our governing system would not be broken as long as the President would do his cons utional duty -- as assuredly he would -- and neither sign nor veto it, but rather, publicly declare it a nullity, tear it up and burn it, as one would a piece of trash.
I refuse to conjecture on any alternative action by the president.
In other news, the White House spokesman last week engaged in an indecorous public exchange with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
She destroyed your prior thread in only 3 posts? She must be an effective troll!
http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/...ters ialskipOn February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that
a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original
bill for purposes of amendment.
Don't get me wrong, i think it's ty as , but the question of cons utionality hardly seems as cut and dried as you think it.
From radical right-wing pundit, CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Just when you think you've seen it all in Washington... along comes something like this:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it. Unbelievable.
Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill... and then that vote would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health care bill to be passed.
Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect Democrats - especially those up for re-election in November - from having to make a tough vote. Pelosi says of this process, "I like it... because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word.
The Senate bill, of course, contains many provisions that are unpopular among some House Democrats - including language on abortion funding and taxes on high-cost insurance plans.
This tactic has been used in the past - but never for something as big and important as the nearly $900 billion health care reform bill.
Republicans are jumping all over this - and rightfully so. They're painting it as a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility. Some even suggest it's uncons utional.
Meanwhile President Obama is campaigning relentlessly - calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform, "I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."
The irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives.
Except the managers amendment was already in disclosure. Talk about this bill is the rule would be voting for things yet undecided. That's what is uncons utional. Changes require a vote.
I don't know... sounds pretty ballsy on the part of Pelosi.The irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives.
There would clearly be a judicial review over this if passed. They could claim they got it done, just to have the courts find it uncons utional.
Who would have standing?
Then what's the worry? If it's so obvious it doesn't pass cons utional muster, there's not much to fear.
The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass"
Pelosi's plan outrages Republicans, but they used "deem and pass" well over a hundred times
By Joe Conason
When congressional Republicans predict ominously that Democratic deployment of a self-executing rule (or "deem-and-pass") will encourage them to engage in similar behavior someday, they forget to mention how many times they’ve already done it.
For the sake of anyone troubled by the ranting over this trivial matter, the historical record is indisputable. During the years when the Republicans controlled the House, they set records for the use of such "rarely used" maneuvers. Although their bogus sanctimony should no longer surprise anyone, the utter fraudulence of these latest outbursts has been held up to deserved ridicule by impeccably nonpartisan and even conservative sources. On the American Enterprise Ins ute blog, for instance, congressional expert Norm Ornstein writes:
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass."
That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called uncons utional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration.
To be fair, Ornstein prefers the "regular order" and thus won’t endorse the use of a self-executing rule by the Democrats to pass health care reform. "But even so," he asks, "is there no shame anymore?"
For those who wish we could all just get along, the use of the self-executing rule is among the few things that can be honestly called "bipartisan." So says Donald Wolfensberger, who served on the Republican staff of the House Rules Committee for nearly two decades and as its chief of staff during the 104th Congress, after Newt Gingrich became speaker, in a brief but detailed column that he wrote for Roll Call.
He also posted that essay on the Web site of the Woodrow Wilson Center, where he runs the Congress Project:
When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). [Naturally, Gingrich can now be seen everywhere on cable television complaining about such mischief.] There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
Wolfensberger was inspired by a 2006 episode when the Republican majority -- in order to secure their own loophole-ridden, watered-down version of ethics and lobbying reform -- used not just one but three self-executing rules on a single bill.
Those convoluted moves were necessary to remove previously approved provisions that would have mandated disclosure of lobbyists’ contacts with members and staff, and lobbyists’ solicitation and transmission of campaign contributions to candidates, as well as a third amendment ordering the Government Accountability Office to study lobbyist employment contracts.
Four years ago is not ancient history. The same Republican leaders now roaring furiously about the self-executing rule were in the GOP leadership that used it so vigorously when they held power, including, of course, John Boehner. If we add up Wolfensberger’s numbers, Boehner’s team used the self-executing rule -- which he now denounces as a "twisted scheme" -- well over 100 times.
==========
Hey, wrongies, GFY
boutons_part corn_part deuce
_part _part scrote.
Opposite of rightie is leftie and or wrongie.
GFY
"Deem and Pass" Is NOT "Without a Vote"
Tuesday 16 March 2010
by: Bill Scher | The Campaign for America's Future
Several traditional media outlets are regurgitating the conservative spin that if the House uses the parliamentary procedure known as a "self-executing rule" or "deem and pass," it will be passing the Senate health care vote "without a vote."
Yet that is a false assertion.
MSNBC's First Read succinctly explains the process, in case any other professional journalists care to do their jobs.
...the health-care bill would be voted on INDIRECTLY, tucked into what's known as "the rule." The rule essentially outlines the rules for an upcoming vote -- in this case, it would be the vote on the package of reconciliation fixes. By passing "the rule," the House also would "deem" the Senate bill passed (with a "hereby" statement. "We hereby deem..."). The House would then vote on the package of reconciliation fixes. But the Senate health-care bill would be considered passed even if they never vote on the reconciliation fixes [and] the bill must be signed by the president before the Senate takes up the reconciliation.
So there is a vote by the full House on whether it chooses to pass the Senate health care bill.
If any members of the House do not want to deem the Senate bill passed, they can vote "No" on the rule which would deem it passed.
Any members of the House who vote "Yes," would do so by recorded vote, so their cons uents will be able to judge their actions.
Kinda sounds like democracy.
All that is accomplished here is the consolidation of a step. Instead of a separate vote on the Senate bill, it is packaged with the procedural motion that precedes changes to the bill in the budget reconciliation process.
Why bother with the non-traditional legislating? Some House members would prefer to consolidate those two steps, so conservatives will have a harder time attacking them over controversial elements in the Senate bill -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" -- which the House is planning to strip out in the reconciliation process, yet with which Republican leaders have already tried to tar House members.
Knowing the facts makes GOP Rep. David Dreier's hysteria sound all the sillier, as reported by CNN: "I think that [James] Madison would be spinning in his grave at the fact that there is absolutely no accountability to what is taking place here."
Or, Madison would call Dreier a liar, as there is complete accountability with a recorded vote.
If conservative obstructionists actually think this is uncons utional, they should be giddy, because they then could have the courts nullify the entire law as illegitimate. But they know that it is legit, because Republicans have repeatedly used this procedure when they were in power.
So instead, conservatives are just ginning up fake outrage, knowing full well, as Eschaton put it, "...the media will trumpet it and congressional offices will see it on their always-tuned-to-cable-news-teevees and get scared."
But as Eschaton also says, in the end no one who votes cares about the process. They care whether the reforms will help them or hurt them.
Congrespeople should not let the fact that conservatives can easily con the Washington media let them lose sight of what really matters to voters.
http://www.truthout.org/deem-and-pas...ote57734?print
=======
Ignokit , consider yourself slapped silly.
Ouch! your labias hurt.[B][SIZE="4"]
Ignokit , consider yourself slapped silly.
In my opinion, most certainly not the democrats.
There has to be a showing of actual harm. I believe this is where previous challenges failed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
