The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 7:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 310 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:55 am 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 70080.html

Is this even possible? Can Pelosi really pass the bill by only voting on the amendments to it?

Quote:
We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

Under the "reconciliation" process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.

But Mrs. Pelosi & Co. fear they lack the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for the Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that were added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.

View Full Image
slaughter
Associated Press

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y
slaughter
slaughter

So at the Speaker's command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what's known as a "self-executing rule," also known as a "hereby rule." Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.

Democrats would thus send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill. They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry never went that far with his Iraq war machinations. As we went to press, the precise mechanics that Democrats will use remained unclear, though yesterday Mrs. Pelosi endorsed this "deem and pass" strategy in a meeting with left-wing bloggers.

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate." This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. While sometimes one house cedes entirely to another, the expectation is that its Members must re-vote on the exact language of the other body's bill.

As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell pointed out in these pages yesterday, "The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form." If Congress can now decide that the House can vote for one bill and the Senate can vote for another, and the final result can be some arbitrary hybrid, then we have abandoned one of Madison's core checks and balances.

Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past, but as the Congressional Research Service put it in a 2006 paper, "Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills." They've also been used for amendments such as to a 1998 bill that "would have permitted the CIA to offer employees an early-out retirement program"—but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.

We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn't want to vote for it. Fence-sitting Members are being threatened with primary challengers, a withdrawal of union support and of course ostracism. Michigan's Bart Stupak is being pounded nightly by MSNBC for the high crime of refusing to vote for a bill that he believes will subsidize insurance for abortions.

Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. They are also leaving behind a procedural bloody trail that will fuel public fury and make such a vast change of law seem illegitimate to millions of Americans.

The concoction has become so toxic that even Mrs. Pelosi isn't bothering to defend the merits anymore, saying instead last week that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Or rather, "deeming" to have passed it.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Pelosi puts the maniacal laughter into Slaughtering the Constitution.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:14 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
I thought the House passed a bill as did the Senate so all that remains is to send it to committee to match up the two bills and vote yes or no on the changes that come through as a result.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:24 am 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
Apparently Pelosi can not even get the votes for that. If this is legal, she can have them vote on the amendments to the senate bill, and thus consider the senate version passed. Providing a fig leaf for her allies to hide behind

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:36 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
So, honestly, I want to see a defense of the President and the Democrats in charge of the various houses of Congress on this one. Because, from where I stand, we should all be in Washington demanding their resignation, prosecution, and execution.

And, I'll simply state, I need no further proof than the shenanigans of these elected officials to demonstrated that universal suffrage is a greater threat to freedom and "democracy" then anything else.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:41 am 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
Hey as Pelosi said last week "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it!"

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
I don't understand what's going on here at all. Didn't they make clear that the reconciliation process can only be used on existing legislation? How can they even have a reconciliation vote before the legislation has passed? Even if they can use parliamentary tricks to "assume" both houses have passed the bill and allow a reconciliation vote, surely they cannot use the same trick to assume Obama has also signed it before he has.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:19 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Xequecal:

They're breaking the law en masse. It literally IS a grand conspiracy to subvert the Constitution of the United States.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:25 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Khross wrote:
And, I'll simply state, I need no further proof than the shenanigans of these elected officials to demonstrated that universal suffrage is a greater threat to freedom and "democracy" then anything else.


I am not disputing anything above, this process blows.

Though I am curious to find out who you feel should have the right to vote.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:28 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Hopwin:

As I have said a dozen times before ...

1. Land Owners
2. Property Owners (think Condo)
3. Those who have completed a 6 year term of service in the U.S. Armed Forces
4. Business Owners

Plus, you must actually have to pay taxes.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:33 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Khross wrote:
Hopwin:

As I have said a dozen times before ...

1. Land Owners
2. Property Owners (think Condo)
3. Those who have completed a 6 year term of service in the U.S. Armed Forces
4. Business Owners

Plus, you must actually have to pay taxes.

Sorry I didn't search all of your previous posts to see everything you've ever written :lol:

What about apartment dwellers in areas with limited ownership potential (thinking NYC)?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:55 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Hopwin wrote:
What about apartment dwellers in areas with limited ownership potential (thinking NYC)?
Only if they own a business or have military service.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:01 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
I would add elected officials to that list, Khross.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Rynar wrote:
I would add elected officials to that list, Khross.
Elected officials should never be allowed to vote for their own re-election.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:07 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Khross wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
What about apartment dwellers in areas with limited ownership potential (thinking NYC)?
Only if they own a business or have military service.

So everyone else who pays taxes is SoL?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:09 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Khross wrote:
Rynar wrote:
I would add elected officials to that list, Khross.
Elected officials should never be allowed to vote for their own re-election.


Not really the point I was considering, but why not? In order to represent their various districts/states/towns/ect. they have to live there as citizens. If they are a citizen of that district, then they are also a constituent, even if they are their own constituent.

Not to mention the fact that they only represent a single vote.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:10 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Hopwin wrote:
Khross wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
What about apartment dwellers in areas with limited ownership potential (thinking NYC)?
Only if they own a business or have military service.

So everyone else who pays taxes is SoL?


My guess is that only those with the franchise would be required to pay taxes.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:22 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Rynar wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
So everyone else who pays taxes is SoL?


My guess is that only those with the franchise would be required to pay taxes.

Well that doesn't sound right, does that mean they don't get access to police & fire protection or drive on the roads I pay for?

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
CRS report for Congress- The Self Executing Rule

There is of course the Presentment Clause, which states that both houses have to pass the exact same law before it can be presented to the President and be enacted into law.

Then there is the problem that several of the "fixes" that the House was seeking as part of the reconciliation parcel were deemed not appropriate and cannot be included in the package of "fixes" under those rules.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Hopwin wrote:
I thought the House passed a bill as did the Senate so all that remains is to send it to committee to match up the two bills and vote yes or no on the changes that come through as a result.


No, doing it that way would require sending both the House and Senate bills (which are substantially different) to conference committee to create a single, blended version of the two, then having both chambers vote on the result. That would result in another Senate filibuster. What the Dem leadership would like to do instead is have the House scrap its own bill and simply pass the Senate bill as-is. If they do that, the same bill will have passed both chambers and can go straight to the President for signing with no need for a conference or subsequent Senate vote.

However, the more liberal members of the House are refusing to do that because they think the Senate bill is too conservative, and some of the pro-life Dems are refusing to do that because they think the Senate bill leaves a loophole for abortion funding. So, to get the liberal and pro-life members to vote yes on the Senate bill, the leadership is trying to use the reconciliation rules, which allow for changes to a bill after it's already been voted on, provided both chambers then approve those changes. So, another Senate vote would be required, but the key is that reconciliation changes aren't subject to the filibuster. The controversy in that approach is that reconciliation is supposed to be only for budgetary changes, not substantive ones, and it's a stretch (and then some) to say the changes the Dems are considering are strictly budgetary.

The added wrinkle that Uncle Fester is pointing out here is that some Dems in the House don't want to go on record voting for the Senate bill, so the leadership is considering using a procedural tactic that allows members to vote on the reconciliation changes directly and have that vote carry over to the underlying bill. Basically, it allows the reluctant Dems to answer criticisms of the underlying bill by saying, "Hey, I just voted to improve the thing!"

It's slick, and I imagine pretty self-defeating as a public relations ploy, but that's really all it is. At the end of the day, the Dems have a clear majority in both chambers, both chambers will vote yes on the bill that goes to the President's desk, and the President will sign it. The Constitutional requirements will be satisfied. All this drama is just a result of the crappy procedural bullsh*t the House and Senate have set up for themselves. Which is why I think they should reform their procedural rules to avoid all this craziness and just do things on straight up-or-down votes with no supermajority requirements beyond those demanded by the Constitution itself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Khross wrote:
1. Land Owners
2. Property Owners (think Condo)
3. Those who have completed a 6 year term of service in the U.S. Armed Forces
4. Business Owners

Plus, you must actually have to pay taxes.


My objection to that approach, Khross, is that property isn't the only interest affected by government, so it excludes people who do have a vested interest in the government from participating in it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Ezra Klein has a good, short take on this today:

Ezra Klein wrote:
The conservative case against "Deem and Pass" is getting very complex, very fast. Yesterday, the argument was that it was flatly unconstitutional. But it turns out that Republicans used Deem and Pass dozens of times while they were in power. So today's furor is that Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter joined Public Citizen in a lawsuit arguing that a bill that George W. Bush signed was invalid because Deem and Pass is unconstitutional. But the court ruled against Public Citizen, Pelosi and Slaughter. Deem and Pass, well, passed. And now Democrats are using it, too.

This is the sort of world I warned about in my article on the arms race of procedural gimmickry in the Congress. The minority makes the filibuster a constant presence. So the majority makes reconciliation a frequent friend. The Senate bogs down and so the House stops being able to trust that the Senate will be able to pass legislation, so they begin innovating methods of defensive legislating like self-executing rules and Deem and Pass. The whole thing is nuts, and it's done by both parties. The variables here are majority and the minority, not Democrats and Republicans.

As I said in the piece, it's time to clean the rulebook. I'd like a 51-vote Senate. If America chooses a 60-vote Senate, then so be it. But either way, let's decide how the place will work and set that into stone. This world where loopholes keep transforming Congress has created a norm of legislating using any process you can concoct, rather than in a single, straightforward fashion.


Klein is obviously pro-reform, but he knows his sh*t and is well worth reading if you want to get into the weeds on this stuff. And I couldn't agree more with the last two paragraphs in the above quote.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:55 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
RangerDave wrote:
Khross wrote:
1. Land Owners
2. Property Owners (think Condo)
3. Those who have completed a 6 year term of service in the U.S. Armed Forces
4. Business Owners

Plus, you must actually have to pay taxes.
My objection to that approach, Khross, is that property isn't the only interest affected by government, so it excludes people who do have a vested interest in the government from participating in it.
And the last century proves that an expansive suffrage leads to an expansive government. Everyone has a vested interest in government, but universal suffrage is a demonstrable harm to individual liberty, freedom, and quality of life.

That said, I think your analysis of the legislative position is disheartening. Our legislators should be facing charges; more importantly, they are acting in open defiance of their constituents. The Senate requires a supermajority. A Filibuster breaking vote is MANDATORY per Senate procedural rules, which is kind of funny. You must actually get passed a cloture motion to post an up or down vote on the issue. It has nothing to do with "fillubsters" as obstructionism. (Ladas and Vindicarre demonstrated that reality quite forcefully last time someone suggested a simple majority should be all that's required).

P.S. Ezra Klein is a fool and shill. You should read J-List sometime.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:57 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
RD:

Do you have any idea how inconsistant our rule of law would be from federal election to federal election if that's all that was required. Not to mention how expensive. The system we have now, while confusing in it's parlamentary rules, is designed exactly for this purpose. To slow the government down, and make it harder to enact sweping changes.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Giving only landowners the vote could work, but you would have to have some kind of equality provisions to prevent abuses, for example laws that state anyone not enfranchised has to pay 25% extra income tax, or triples prison sentences for the disenfranchised, or other things of that nature.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 310 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group