• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obamacare Slaughter Rule is without Precedent

    Yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed the rumored Slaughter Rule to send the Senate passed Obamacare bill to the President without a direct up-or-down vote in the House. Don’t believe those on the left who are trying to argue that because Republicans used deeming resolutions when they were in power, it is ok for Democrats to use a similar tactic to pass legislation without a vote.

    Under this procedure, the House would vote on a rule setting up debate.  The House would then skip a vote on the Senate passed version of Obamacare and move directly to a vote on reconciliation amendments to that Senate passed bill.  If reconciliation passes, then the House will deem the Senate bill to have passed the House without a direct vote.  As Michael McConnell wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, this is yet another reason Obamacare would be unconstitutional.

    Pelosi explained the need for this procedure yesterday: “I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”  Many Democrats could vote for the rule and claim that they are against the Senate bill.

    A Wall Street Journal Op Ed today, points out that this procedure is unprecedented because never before has Congress passed a comprehensive reform bill using this tactic:

    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.

    Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.”  If the House does not have a direct vote on the legislation, this seems to be a violation of the explicit language of the Constitution.

    Many on the left are relying on a Congressional Research Service Report (CRS) for the proposition that the Slaughter Rule has been used on numerous occasions. According to CRS, self-executing rules are a “two for one” that describes “when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself.  For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up.”  Now many times this has happened to incorporate amendments before a bill receives an up or down vote or it can be used to get a bill to conference.

    The self-executing rule can be used to deal with bills containing amendments added by the Senate.  The CRS report cites a few examples of self-executing rules to “enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions.”  The first example CRS identifies is that “on August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less duration.”  The legislation to prohibit smoking on domestic flights was made part of another bill, then that other bill received a vote.  This is very different, because the health care reconciliation measure will not be incorporated into the Senate passed version of Obamacare and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate for separate consideration.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders are readying the Slaughter Rule and the American people should watch this process closely.  The left will try to say that because Republicans have done it in the past, then they can do the same.  The Constitutional question is on the table and there is no direct precedent for the House to pass a reconciliation measure which deems a massive health care bill to have passed without a direct vote.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    64 Responses to Obamacare Slaughter Rule is without Precedent

    1. M. Strait San Antoni says:

      With all the spending will Obama's tax returns be made public? and will Nancy P.'s and H. Reed's also made public this year?

    2. M. Strait, San Anton says:

      will all the massive spending by Obama, Nancy P. and Reed will their tax returns be made public this year…. I know the press was always on on Bush to release his tax returns…. Have yet to hear anything on this and was wondering if they have to or not or if they will.

    3. Patrick, in Oklahoma says:

      Corrupt as never before, determined to give King Obama whatever he wants, Democrats in Congress will stoop to new lows– not only bending the rules, but ignoring them, i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

      With our nation's future in the balance, Obamacare needs to be stopped in its tracks and every one of those corrupt Democrats taking part in this political scam should be locked up.

    4. twistedmuser, Atlant says:

      It appears we are headed full circle back to taxation without representation. Does anyone remember how that turned out the first time?

    5. J. K. Lamper says:

      The rule governing consideration of the reconciliation bill will incorporate a motion to agree to the Senate bill (actually a Senate-amended House bill). Agreeing to such a motion is perfectly routine and perfectly legitimate. The House will be presented with the opportunity to vote up or down on a measure incorporating that motion, and by adopting it will in turn adopt a procedure for agreeing to exactly the same text as the Senate passed, which will be triggered by the House's recording of a vote in favor of passage of the reconciliation bill. At no point does the House amend or otherwise alter the text of H.R. 3590 as amended by the Senate. The requirements of the Constitution are satisfied.

    6. Hackford says:

      The most transparent and honest congress ever

    7. CORIANN, USA says:

      Who gives a snort about BHO's tax return? The progressives still contend that the 'negative retoric' has the majority of citizens fooled — what do they think this is, the 2008 election?

      We're awake, now, and understanding things as they really are – do the dems really believe their own retoric, or are they just evil? I guess Nancy's principle applies – we had to elect these morons to see what's really in them.

      Lull them to sleep, Wreck their economy. Put the government in charge of everything. Shut down the press. Steamroll opposition. Put everyone into equal poverty. Ahh. Free at last.

      Wake up! Stand up! Speak up!

      Luv ya, Coriann

    8. P. Louvat says:

      @ J.K.>>They are attempting to send a bill to the POTUS without having voted yea or nay on the Senate version of the bill in question by voting on a package of reconciliation amendments that won't be added as language to the bill being sent to the POTUS. You don't see this as a problem?? Art. 1 Sect. 7 requires that the bill still get a vote. So how are they sending on a bill if a vote doesn't happen on that specific bill which can be entered into the record? Do you care that we have a Constitution?? Self-executing riders or not, bills in the past have still gone on to an actual vote before going to the President.

    9. Anton, Melville, NY says:

      The enactment of Obamacare by a budgetary "reconciliation" process in the Senate and by the "Slaughter" process in the House makes the U.S. Congress a parliament of whores.

      I blame the San Francisco Democrats headed by Pelosi and Reid as well as Obama, who hails from the bowels of the Chicago political machine as the culprits responsible for tearing apart the U.S. Constitution in order for them to put into place their socialist, borderline fascist agenda. For the first time, I fear for my country.

      I also blame the 52% of the electorate who voted for Obama. They knew or should have known that this local community activist and part time professor of law and senator would try to implement his socialist agenda to make this nation a satellite of France — and in so doing, undermine the fabric upon which this nation was founded. Shame on them. They will have to answer to their grandchildren for allowing this injury to have occurred.

    10. Anton, Melville, NY says:

      God forbid that anybody from the Left-Wing of America who reads my earlier comment should become confused by my reference to "Obama." Of course, I mean Barach "ChangeYouCanBelieveIn" Obama.

    11. Ervin Mitchell, Atla says:

      Appears constitutional to me. Now that Democrats are in the majority, Reb. seem to respond in a negative way to every proposal recommended.

      Health care reform is needed in this country now. Just this year my health care copay has increased, the deductible has increased, my prescriptions ahave increased and my percentage of the total medical charge for a procedure has increased. Where is the money going? Nothing has improved to rightfully pay for these increases. As a middle income American, I have been hurt multiple ways in this economy.

      Stop gripping.

    12. BuckeyeTexan, DFW says:

      Re: J.K. Lamper's comment – "The rule governing consideration of the reconciliation bill will incorporate a motion to agree to the Senate bill (actually a Senate-amended House bill)."

      There is no Senate-amended House bill. The Senate health care bill is totally separate and very different from the House bill. Thus Pelosi's stipulation that her members will need certain assurances regarding the Senate bill.

    13. V. O'Neil Steph says:

      I'm afraid they drained the swamp all right, but look at what we are left with! They don't even have the decency to be ashamed of what they are doing. Whether you are convinced that the Constitution is a "living" document or not…it is still: FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. Well, the people have spoken and we don't want Obamacare. Deal with it swampthings! There are better solutions. Consent of the Governed!!!

    14. Daniel, OR says:

      The "Slaughter Solution" is very different from previous uses of self-executing rules. In the previous uses, a self executing rule has incorporated an Amendment into a bill. However, that Bill (including the now incorporated Amendments) still recieved a final up or down vote on passage before going to the President and being signed into law. In this case, Nanci Pelosi wants to create a self executing bill that will say that the House deems the Senate bill to have passed if the Senate votes for the reconciliation package (a completely seperate bill.) Thus the Senate Bill will go to the present to be signed into law without ever having recieved an up or down vote in the house of Representatives. This is clearly Unconstitutional and is an attack on our Representative Form of Government. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter are guilty of Treason against the People and Constitution of the United States of America.

    15. Anton, Melville, NY says:

      Ervin Mitchell and those like him just prove my point.

      It is disingenuous and plain wrong for the Left-Wing of America to suggest that those who oppose the enactment of ObamaCare or the (sleezy and despicable) process by which the majority party seeks to evade Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, are somehow guilty of responding "in a negative way to every proposal recommended." That is like saying that a person sitting in a restaurant acts in a "negative way" by declining to choose from the menu those items in the menu recommended by another person who also sits in the restaurant. Only fascist wanna-bees (like the Left-Wing of America) would insist that everybody who dines at the restaurant MUST choose exactly what the fascist deems an acceptable choice of dinner items or else be accused (God forbid) of acting in a negative way.

      It is also contrary to American values (and plain selfish and greedy) for the Left-Wing of America to argue that we should enact ObamaCare in order for the current generation to pay less in insurance premiums or in medical costs. You do not have to have a college education to know that it is fraudulent for Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their sympathizers to contend that this nation can insure 30 million currently uninsured persons without reducing coverage or increasing premiums or the national debt. They know full well that there has NEVER been an entitlement program that came within projected budget guidelines. Of course, the Left-Wing of America chooses to ignore these historic-based facts because they suffer from a disease that plagues most European nations: socialism.

      The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you start to run out of other people's money.

    16. J, AZ says:

      The Senate Bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in it's financial provisions. Does not the Constitution require ALL bills regarding the raising of revenue to ORIGINATE in the House?

      This aside from the utter lack of Constitutional authority for any of it.

    17. Pingback: Obamacare Slaughter Rule « Gray3’s Thirdsphere

    18. Bob Norris says:

      I had many ancestors fight for independence from English tyranny such as the Hancocks. This gibberish about deeming is revolting to anyone who cherishes freedom. The people rule this great nation not those godless traitors to the constitution in leadership positions at present.

    19. Mary Ann Scurrey says:

      Why would anyone want this health care bill that is being rammed down our throats by people in congress who would never want this type of health care for themselves and their families? My health care may not be the cheapest in the world but I can take care of myself and I for one do not want further entitlements for those who want others to take care of them. That is what I cannot afford. Not my health care, but the socialist, marxist agenda being thrust upon us which will only lead to higher taxes and poorer quaility of health care and an unclear future for out children and grandchildren.

    20. Pingback: How a Bill Becomes Law. - PennJersey.info Forums

    21. Sharon Rogers Bedfor says:

      This is unconstitutional and against the law as far as I am concerned. I hope someone goes to court and WINS!!!!! Then impeach any representative or president who signs off on this insane bill!!!

    22. Virginia Hindman says:

      If this unconstitutional move gets pushed through, there needs to be an organized effort to impeach both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama for not standing by their swearing in pledge to "uphold the Constitution of the United States." We must hold Congress and those that represent the people accountable for their actions, and the action needs to be immediate!

    23. J. K. Lamper says:

      P. Louvat — The House, under its constitutional prerogative stemming from Art. I, Sec. 5, determines its own rules of proceeding. All the Constitution requires of it is that approval of bills be signaled by a recording of the yeas and nays in its Journal, and that the same text be agreed to by both houses of Congress. By agreement under the rule, the House will indeed signal its agreement by the yeas and nays to the language of the Senate bill, but it will do so with its vote on the reconciliation bill. The President will sign the original bill (HR 3590), and then will sign the Reconciliation bill once it has passed both houses.

      Buckeye — HR 3590 is indeed the original House bill, amended by the Senate. Look ut up on OpenCongress. Same bill.

    24. J. K. Lamper, Dallas says:

      P. Louvat — The House, under its constitutional prerogative stemming from Art. I, Sec. 5, determines its own rules of proceeding. All the Constitution requires of it is that approval of bills be signaled by a recording of the yeas and nays in its Journal, and that the same text be agreed to by both houses of Congress. By agreement under the rule, the House will indeed signal its agreement by the yeas and nays to the language of the Senate bill, but it will do so with its vote on the reconciliation bill. The yeas and nays are recorded on the Journal, and the text of the Senate bill itself remains unchanged in the action.

      The President will then sign HR3590 into law. Later he will sign the reconciliation bill, if it passes both Houses.

      Buckeye — The 'Senate bill' is simply an amended form of the original House bill — HR 3590. Check opencongress.com.

    25. GAW, MN says:

      This administration is as corrupt as it gets. At every turn, there is slime and sleaze staining everything they touch. Harry Pelosi is no better. They all have to go NOW.

    26. Zack says:

      both bush tax cuts passed the exact same way the healthcare bill is proposed to pass. the tax cuts total cost and increase to the defecit will be over 2.5 trillion dollars, twice the amount of the healthcare bill. bush and the republican led congress added a fiscal defecit of over 6.1 trillion dollars. the only two presidents to double the national debt -bush and reagan. let me tell you whats unconstitutional- tax cuts for the rich. invading a country and sacraficing over a million lives for no reason. profit driven monopolies that insure who has the most money. its funny that you take a blog from some conservative on this website and take it as truth. nothing is unconstitutional about the way this bill will get to the presidents desk. whats funny is when conservatives try and say the american people don't want health care reform.(its not working) americans do want healthcare. the fear mongering and lies are drying up. you guys are anything but patriots or "freedom fighters". try doing your own research instead of frantically trying to find "facts" on the heritage foundation website. so embarrasing.

    27. Judy, WI says:

      People like Ervin Mitchell and others who are for this bill are under the misguided impression that this is going to improve their financial outlook. NO. That's wrong. Everything in our economy is already on a financial kilter. This is only going to make it worse. For instance, taxation on this starts now whereas "benefits" don't begin for another four years. Plus on top of that our health care will be rationed. I can get into my doctor's office this afternoon if need be. How about wait times of a month or more in future??? Early treatment is always less expensive.

    28. A J Anderson, Sugar says:

      The Slaughter Rule as proposed to be used is unconstitutional. How can the Congress and the President be allowed to violate the Constitution? Is it not illegal? Who has the authority to step up and declare the Health Care Bill if it is passed as nonbinding and unable to be enacted into law because of its violating The Constitution? I am writing here in frustration and outrage, because I could not answer any of my questions just stated. God help us all!

    29. P.Louvat says:

      So as Rush was just talking about, since the word "deem" means to pretend, on April15th can we just "deem" that our taxes have been paid. If congress gets to pretend and still claim "legitimacy", then I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I deem that my tax liability has been paid in full.

      Daniel, OR>> Amen brother. Pelosi and Slaughter should be expelled under art. 1 sect. 5 for not upholding their oath to protect and defend then Constitution.

    30. J K Lamper, Dallas, says:

      P. Louvat — The House, under its constitutional prerogative stemming from Art. I, Sec. 5, determines its own rules of proceeding. All the Constitution requires of it is that approval of bills be signaled by a recording of the yeas and nays in its Journal, and that the same text be agreed to by both houses of Congress. By agreement under the rule, the House will indeed signal its agreement by the yeas and nays to the language of the Senate bill, but it will do so with its vote on the reconciliation bill.

      The President will then sign HR3590 into law. Later he will sign the reconciliation bill, if it passes both Houses.

      Buckeye — The 'Senate bill' is simply an amended form of the original House bill — HR 3590. Check opencongress.com.

    31. C. S. Thomas GA says:

      The self-executed, Slaughter Rule is aptly named – it will slaughter the innocent unborn and thrust a critical, if not fatal blow, to our representative democracy.

    32. Pingback: Hume: Befuddled Washington Press Corps Sign that Pelosi Health Care Moves Unprecedented :Natural Diabetes Treatment

    33. Pingback: Bachmann Rips Media for Not Covering Deem and Pass; Suggests Pelosi Impeachment Warranted :Natural Diabetes Treatment

    34. H. J. Lowery says:

      The American People, relinquishing govenrment "Of, For and By the People", have voted for the government they deserve. Caveat Emptor applies to politics and used cars. The difference is that the Constitution forbids recall of members of Congress. No Lemon Law for the voters.

      The entry above, "twistedmuser, Atlanta on March 16th, 2010 at 12:49pm said:

      It appears we are headed full circle back to taxation without representation. Does anyone remember how that turned out the first time?" is right on point. Keep your powder dry.

      Life, Liberty amd Property are most at risk when the Legislature is in session – Danial Webster.

    35. S.K. Starrenburg, Ha says:

      If this healthcare bill gets passed in such an unconstitutional manner, does this mean we the people are not going to be held responsible to comply? In other words, there is nothing about the bill that is constitutional, there is nothing about the voting process that is constitutional; therefore, when the president signs it into law, do we have to abide this law?

    36. Jen, Illiois says:

      It appears the House has assumed Obama's habit of voting "present" as he did when in the Illinois Senate. Passage of this bill is not a dispute between the Republicans and the Democrats – it's a dispute between the Democrats and their constituents.

    37. Pingback: Obamacare Slaughter Rule is without Precedent

    38. A. Embry, Bowling Gr says:

      Pay attention, people.

      This is a teachable moment. My generation (30's) needs to see with their own eyes what happens when serious leftists are put in charge. People my age don't have the benefit of remembering Jimmy Carter. I can rail about the threat of socialism all day, but people must see it in the flesh to understand.

      Nobody in Kansas fears sharks, until they go to the beach.

      Nobody in America fears rationed medicine, until they go to Canada.

    39. John B Logan says:

      I am against this Health Care Reform. It is being push in on us in an UnAmerican way! Please don't take away from Medicare. This Heath Reform Bill, we don't know whats in it, it takes away our rights and our rights the way its being force through with out regard to the American People.

      Thanks,

    40. Todd says:

      What happened to "Transparency"? I'm not sure about the whole "Transparency" but I do know what Obama was talking about when he kept saying "Change" and "Hope". The "Change" part was the U.S. changing from a somewhat fair society where people had at least some say in how the government is run and a lot of say in their own life to having neither. The "Hope" nonsense was the fact people will hope that Obama will not be succesful with the "Change" nonsense.

      Just A Point of View

    41. Pingback: Bachmann Rips Media; Suggests Pelosi Impeachment Warrented | Be John Galt

    42. Patricia Cody, Hunte says:

      According to Stupak and others passing Obamacare will allow for taxpayer funded abortions. My concern on this provision in addition to the prolife issue is how it might affect health care workers and instiutions objecting to abortions on the basis of religious reasons or others. Would institutions and individuals objecting to abortion lose federal funding and/or be removed from the health care industry. I would think that congressmen and others would be questioning this as well. Thank you.

    43. Ryan South Bend, IN says:

      It's amazing to me that 53% of Americans didnt see this coming before Barry was elected. We cant give up the fight now. We are the last Free country on earth and on our side is something that the "left" is forgetting about…The Constitution of the United States!! The fight has just begun and with the principles of the founding fathers on our side, We WILL WIN!! I believe this is why Pelosi, Reid, and Barry Obama are so fiercly and fraudulantly trying to pass this criminal legislation.

    44. Richard E. Poulin Jr says:

      It will be a sad day for our Founding Fathers and America if Pelosi has her way!

    45. Linda Reagan says:

      Didn't Hitler take control of Germany with some similar sort of sleight of hand?

    46. Jeff McLeod Corona C says:

      This bill is criminal. To proceed against public opinion smells like treason. I hope we survive as a nation.

    47. gordon bowyer says:

      The Obama care group is out to Bankrupt America. I heard Obama say he doesn't know all that is in the bill and didn't care ,he just wants it passed. That is A pitifull comment for a President to say.

    48. Syd Knee, Chicago, I says:

      Don't be so bogged down with custom! Not sure why you think it's OK for a deeming res. to get a bill to conference but not for passing a bill. The Constitution doesn't say much about procedure. What if the long-time custom was that before a bill were sent to the President, the House and Senate passed Resolutions deeming the passage of the bill? Everyone will see how the House votes on the Resolution. If the practical effect is that they vote for the Senate bill AND for a bill that would amend the Senate bill, then everybody knows that. If the Senate bill gets signed into law, anybody who voted for the Slaughter proposal is obviously (and transparently) responsibile. Here's another precedent (not in the Slaughter list):

      H. Res. 432

      In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

      May 13, 2009.

      Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall be considered to have: (1) passed the bill (H.R. 2101) to promote reform and independence in the oversight of weapons system acquisition by the Department of Defense, as amended by the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill…

    49. Sickof Washington says:

      Has there ever been a time in our history where our elected officials have dismissed the launguage in our Constitution, where the elected officials have been less concerned about what the people think, where the elected officals have so blantly discarded our liberty, where our elected officials seems to want total control over the people's lives in a framework of secrecy and lies? I will never vote for another elected official that is serving (being facious) us in Washington now. I look forward to November! If our duly elected officials cannot establish term limits, then I, can sure help them!

    50. D. Harder says:

      Any government that does not respect the life of the unborn is not going to care about the rest of us.

      May God have mercy on America.

      We have excluded Him from everything, How can we expect Him to continue to bless us?

    51. JoeG, Rohnert Park, says:

      Lamper said (three times): "HR 3590 is indeed the original House bill, amended by the Senate. Look ut up on OpenCongress. Same bill."

      Rather than use OpenCongress, I prefer Thomas, that wonderful system instituted by newt Gingrich. According to Thomas' description of HR 3590:

      "The bill is the Senate vehicle for health care reform legislation. Its official title as it was introduced in the House was "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." Upon passage of H.R.3590 by the Senate, the official title was amended to read "An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

      So, Harry Reid, too clever by half, took a non-related bill that had already passed the House, completely gutted it, and re-wrote it to be his version of a Health Care bill. That's what put Congress in the quandry of having two dissimilar bills that required reconcilliation. Scott Brown's election to the Senate put the kibosh on that plan. So, now, Speaker Pelosi is concocting this scheme to ram the bill through while still maintaining a level of deniability for her members.

      I have been calling and emailing my Congresswoman, saying, "If you want this to be your swan song, go ahead."

    52. Gary, PA says:

      This is a theft of our liberties. We need to act now. I have been blogging @ goodwrites.com with work that can be done and arguments to persuade the ill-informed. Keep reading. Keep talking. Keep writing. Keep fighting. Act Today!
      We have willfully allowed the government to steal our liberties in the past. We have created an Abdication Nation… abdicating our inalienable rights to the government. This Abdication Nation will not stand! Act today!

    53. webs5 Laconia , N H says:

      This is all about Unions and very little about Health care. Just look the look alike European systems . ALL doctors, nurses and any other workers who work in public hospitals or clinics are required to join the unions or they do not get a job. period.

      Thats why the unions spent about 400 million buck to get this POTUS elected. Now its pay back time.

      Wake up before Obama socialized medical program comes to your city

      Webs

    54. Pingback: Bachmann Rips Media for Not Covering Deem and Pass; Suggests Pelosi Impeachment Warranted Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/17/bachmann-rips-media-not-covering-deem-and-pass-suggests-pelosi-impeachment « Socialism is not the

    55. Pingback: Michelle Bachmann suggest Nancy Pelosi should be Impeached « Socialism is not the Answer

    56. Pingback: Slaughter Rule Not Defended by President | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    57. Sean Griffith Atlant says:

      i just wonder why if the democrats are so convinced that their helthcare reform will pass, they are trying to use procedures that are out of the norm for big pieces of legislation such as this? or is it that they actually dont have the votes? and to J.K Lamper the house and senate have to vote on the same exact bill, meaning the house must have a direct vote on the senate bill before amendments can be made or proposed, and in the vent that these amendments are proposed the the bill with the changes must go back through the sante and house again because it is no longer the same bill, your saying that the senate can have their bill signed into law by the house passing the reconcilliation package is in explicit violation of art. 1 sect. 7 because the same bill did not pass the house and senate

    58. David, Medon, TN says:

      There are countless States lining up to bring suit against the Feds if the HCR bill passes. The Supreme Court will be bombarded, holding up any implementation of Health Care Reform as the congress sees it.

    59. toledofan says:

      It appears to me that we are at a crossroads; we either are going to remain the free and rugged individuals our forefathers developed the Constitution to support or we will be ruled by the government who decides everything for everybody and distributes the wealth as they see fit. I don't think we're ready for the later and it's clear to me that the challenges to what is going on will be lengthty and drawn out. Hopefully, by that time the perpatrators will be out of office.

    60. PBoling, Houston says:

      The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

      "The Senators and Representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

      For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "Member of Congress shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution."

      At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:

      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

      Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” If the House does not have a direct vote on the legislation, this seems to be a violation of the explicit language of the Constitution.

      We can only pray that our representatives abide by their Oath of Office, so help us God.

    61. Mike Visaggio, Richm says:

      The constitutionality of this is wrapped up in the 10th amendment, pure and simple. The federal government was not given the power to interfere in the private sector in this way. It was not given power to become the nation's health care savior. It was not given power to subvert an entire industry for the purpose of destroying it and stepping into its place. If these powers even exist, they are reserved to the states or the people. So however they pass this monster, if they do, it is sure to be challenged first at the state level and then at the Supreme Court. Even Justice Kennedy cannot miss this one.

    62. Duncan Harvey says:

      The congress is in violation of the constitution, therfroe one would hope a suite will be filed in federal court to stop this chrade from becomming law.

      DH

    63. Ta, GA says:

      The 'representatives' in washington have forgotten about those that elected them to 'seve'. We will remind them of their oaths of office next year!

    64. Janis says:

      Why does no one realize that the Justices just declared this bill Constitutional without reading the bill since that would be "cruel and unusual punishment"! How can you pass judgement on something that you did not READ? Ask the judges how the rest of the law is ok, this is not a two paragraph bill only concerning the Congress' right to tax.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×