"self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass"

[Spartness]

Apparently Nancy Pelosi is strongly considering using this procedure. According to the article I read, Pelosi and the House can get around voting for the Senate version of the health bill. The Republicans are saying this would be unconstitutional -- I realize this is partisanship at best, but is there some truth to it? Can the U.S. Supreme Court rule the Dems can't use this procedure?

 

Carlfense: You study law. In simple language, can you explain how the self-executing rule works, and how Pelosi can get around voting for the health bill. I do not understand the explanations I have read so for. Please help.

[carlfense]

Apparently Nancy Pelosi is strongly considering using this procedure. According to the article I read, Pelosi and the House can get around voting for the Senate version of the health bill. The Republicans are saying this would be unconstitutional -- I realize this is partisanship at best, but is there some truth to it? Can the U.S. Supreme Court rule the Dems can't use this procedure?

 

Carlfense: You study law. In simple language, can you explain how the self-executing rule works, and how Pelosi can get around voting for the health bill. I do not understand the explanations I have read so for. Please help.

 

I don't know much about Constitutional rules. I looked on wikipedia and found the following:

 

When the full House votes to approve a self-executing rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For example, modifications or amendments can be approved and while underlying bill is approved at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-executing_rule

 

I think this means that they will essentially approve the health bill while only specifically voting on the modifications that they want to make to the bill. Basically . . . it's a face saving measure. The House Democrats want to pass the bill but don't want to face the angry public who does not want the bill. This gives them some measure of deniability if the voters don't look too closely at the voting record. A congressman could say that he was only voting to approve the modifications and amendments . . . even though that vote was a de facto vote for the health bill as a whole.

 

Anyways. To me it just looks like politics. The Democrats want to pass this but are fearful that they won't be re-elected if they do pass it. The Republicans act horrified and outraged . . . despite the fact that they use the exact same tactics and procedures. (I believe the Republicans have used the "deemed passed" option in the past . . . much like their feigned horror at reconciliation when they've used the process more often than the Democrats.)

 

Well, that's probably about as clear as mud. Let me know if that is as indecipherable as I fear it is.

[sarge87]

Apparently Nancy Pelosi is strongly considering using this procedure. According to the article I read, Pelosi and the House can get around voting for the Senate version of the health bill. The Republicans are saying this would be unconstitutional -- I realize this is partisanship at best, but is there some truth to it? Can the U.S. Supreme Court rule the Dems can't use this procedure?

 

Carlfense: You study law. In simple language, can you explain how the self-executing rule works, and how Pelosi can get around voting for the health bill. I do not understand the explanations I have read so for. Please help.

 

I don't know much about Constitutional rules. I looked on wikipedia and found the following:

 

When the full House votes to approve a self-executing rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For example, modifications or amendments can be approved and while underlying bill is approved at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia....-executing_rule

 

I think this means that they will essentially approve the health bill while only specifically voting on the modifications that they want to make to the bill. Basically . . . it's a face saving measure. The House Democrats want to pass the bill but don't want to face the angry public who does not want the bill. This gives them some measure of deniability if the voters don't look too closely at the voting record. A congressman could say that he was only voting to approve the modifications and amendments . . . even though that vote was a de facto vote for the health bill as a whole.

 

Anyways. To me it just looks like politics. The Democrats want to pass this but are fearful that they won't be re-elected if they do pass it. The Republicans act horrified and outraged . . . despite the fact that they use the exact same tactics and procedures. (I believe the Republicans have used the "deemed passed" option in the past . . . much like their feigned horror at reconciliation when they've used the process more often than the Democrats.)

 

Well, that's probably about as clear as mud. Let me know if that is as indecipherable as I fear it is.

Wasn't it just a few years ago the press was feigning horror---when Republicans frustrated by Democrat filibustering---threatened to use reconciliation to push through judicial nominees? I do find it quite humorous those very same news outlets---who were accusing Republicans of shredding the Constitution by the way---are now strangely silent. Some are actually cheerleaders on the front lines. So much for the watchdog "Fourth Estate" who used to protect the little guy from the government. Nowadays they are the 4th branch of government.

 

The Slaughter Rule is really a procedural process, just like reconciliation. From a purely legal standpoint, I do not think the GOP can argue that this very narrow process is Unconstitutional.

 

However, the Slaughter Rule is political dynamite. The Slaughter Rule, like reconciliation, was intended to be used more as an administrative stop-gap for already agreed upon legislation. Rep. Drier (R, CA) used it in 2006 to increase the federal debt limits and for a $50 billion cost cutting measure. Like reconciliation, the Slaughter Rule was never intended to be the main process in which to pass expensive, unpopular legislation that represents 1/6 of the economy---which is what Pelosi is doing. The difference between then and now is the Republican controlled Senate had to rely on bipartisanship to get 60 votes to pass a bill in 2006, whereas the current healthcare bill was decided by a super majority of one party of which the same members who voted for it are no longer in the Senate---Ted Kennedy was replaced by Republican Scott Brown. The Founders created the Legislative Branch by design to be cumbersome and inefficient to avoid tyranny by the majority.

 

The Republicans aren't the problem here as Obama and the press would like everyone to think. It's moderate Democrats who are dragging their heels who are tired of being sidelined by their liberal counterparts. They want concessions and their leadership would rather treat them like children who should be seen and not heard.

 

With all this being said, the Supreme Court usually doesn't interfere in the affairs of Congress when it comes to its internal rules. However, it doesn't preclude the individual States themselves bringing lawsuits against the federal government---In Clinton v. New York, the Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto granted by Congress to President Clinton through the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was challenged and subsequently deemed Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The last thing the Democrats would want is their signature legislation to be unceremoniously held in judicial purgatory as this would be.

 

Then again, the States wouldn't have to raise an Unconstitutionality argument since the legislation requires an individual mandate. The individual would be eligible to enact litigation against the federal government. The real legal question is whether the Commerce Clause empowers the feds to force individual people to buy insurance.

[carlfense]

sarge-

 

I fully agree with your comments about the media. I don't think there are any unbiased media outlets now. It seems more like everyone picks the media outlet/newspaper that is most in line with their beliefs and proclaim that it's the only one that isn't biased.

 

Re: "The real legal question is whether the Commerce Clause empowers the feds to force individual people to buy insurance." I think that there is little doubt that the Supreme Court (if they hear the case) will determine that the CC does so empower the feds. We'll see . . . my conlaw knowledge is limited to a one semester 4 hour course . . . but from what I know of the Commerce Clause health insurance should fit the requirements.

[Spartness]

What do you guys think hurt the Dems the most: the bill passes or it doesn't pass? If you listen to Dick Morris on Fox news, it doesn't matter -- they are toast either way. Keep in mind that Dick is probably a bit bias since he has turn conservative since serving in the Clinton Administration. I keep hearing a sign of weakness if it doesn't pass or a sign of arrogance -- you are not listening to us -- if it does.

 

It seems like the Dems feel they have gotten so deep into this that it would be too late -- a sign of weakness -- to try over again and find a plan that would get 60 percent approval from this country. It seems to be an all or nothing situation. According to Dick Morris, that was the mentality of Hillary when she and her husband try to pass a health reform bill. When Dick suggested she try smaller, her answer was it's either this or nothing.

 

Now I also blame the Republicans for not being aggressive enough with their health plan, which includes interstate buying of health insurance, Tort Reform and putting people in high risk pools with pre-existing conditions. They have not been nearly as persistent as the Dems. So they haven't help themselves with the "Party of No" image. And where were they when Bush and the Repubs were in power?

[knapplc]

What do you guys think hurt the Dems the most:

 

I think the Democrats hurt the Democrats the most. They're inept. They've had a majority forever and they've done nothing with it. They're stagnant and people are just disgusted with it.

[huskertim]

sarge-

 

I fully agree with your comments about the media. I don't think there are any unbiased media outlets now. It seems more like everyone picks the media outlet/newspaper that is most in line with their beliefs and proclaim that it's the only one that isn't biased.

 

Re: "The real legal question is whether the Commerce Clause empowers the feds to force individual people to buy insurance." I think that there is little doubt that the Supreme Court (if they hear the case) will determine that the CC does so empower the feds. We'll see . . . my conlaw knowledge is limited to a one semester 4 hour course . . . but from what I know of the Commerce Clause health insurance should fit the requirements.

 

 

I don't know about that cf, the SC seems to be all over the place on CC empowerment they struck down an act of Congress seeking to create federal gun-free zones in 1995 and another allowing federal civil lawsuits under the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 saying the commerce clause is limited to economic activities that substantially affect interstate trade in goods and services but in 2005, the Supreme Court also handed down a decision that commerce clause powers are broad enough to support federal regulation of home-grown medical marijuana in California. Kind of seems like they make it up as they go along but I can't see how mandateing me to have a specific insurance policy fits these critia least the regulation creats an unfair competitive advantage to one states' commercial interests over another which I think gets us into a whole nuther constitutional issue altogether. But hey, what do I know?

[huskertim]

What do you guys think hurt the Dems the most:

 

I think the Democrats hurt the Democrats the most. They're inept. They've had a majority forever and they've done nothing with it. They're stagnant and people are just disgusted with it.

 

 

Kind of depends if your looking at an a## wuppin in the mid terms as political armageddon for the party. I think the DNC is banking on the long term effect. More entitlement programs and more government control has always served the perposes of the "progressive" agenda. I really think they belive that once their foot is in the door, so to speak, it will be impossible to undo this mess before the public is distracted by whatever issue du jour comes along. Ultimately, the more entrenched the program becomes, the more impossible it is to remove it (IE imagine trying to do away with Social Security or Medicare, both programs that did not exist 80 years ago).

[sarge87]

What do you guys think hurt the Dems the most: the bill passes or it doesn't pass? If you listen to Dick Morris on Fox news, it doesn't matter -- they are toast either way. Keep in mind that Dick is probably a bit bias since he has turn conservative since serving in the Clinton Administration. I keep hearing a sign of weakness if it doesn't pass or a sign of arrogance -- you are not listening to us -- if it does.

 

It seems like the Dems feel they have gotten so deep into this that it would be too late -- a sign of weakness -- to try over again and find a plan that would get 60 percent approval from this country. It seems to be an all or nothing situation. According to Dick Morris, that was the mentality of Hillary when she and her husband try to pass a health reform bill. When Dick suggested she try smaller, her answer was it's either this or nothing.

 

Now I also blame the Republicans for not being aggressive enough with their health plan, which includes interstate buying of health insurance, Tort Reform and putting people in high risk pools with pre-existing conditions. They have not been nearly as persistent as the Dems. So they haven't help themselves with the "Party of No" image. And where were they when Bush and the Repubs were in power?

Big difference when you have just a simple majority as compared to a super majority. Bush got bit in the backside big time when he tried to reform SSI so he wasn't going to risk another political nightmare to tackle healthcare. The Democrats, with the help of the press effectively put together a smear and fear campaign against being able to invest 2-3% of your SSI into the market effectively killing the proposal.

 

Any bill passed by the Republican controlled House would have been effectively watered down or rendered garbage in the Senate. Other than 2003 when Republicans had 55 votes in the Senate, from 2001 to 2007 they had never had more than 51 votes.

 

The Dems would have filibustered to death any kind of tort reform---big law firms constitute much of their political contributions.

[sarge87]

What do you guys think hurt the Dems the most:

 

I think the Democrats hurt the Democrats the most. They're inept. They've had a majority forever and they've done nothing with it. They're stagnant and people are just disgusted with it.

 

 

Kind of depends if your looking at an a## wuppin in the mid terms as political armageddon for the party. I think the DNC is banking on the long term effect. More entitlement programs and more government control has always served the perposes of the "progressive" agenda. I really think they belive that once their foot is in the door, so to speak, it will be impossible to undo this mess before the public is distracted by whatever issue du jour comes along. Ultimately, the more entrenched the program becomes, the more impossible it is to remove it (IE imagine trying to do away with Social Security or Medicare, both programs that did not exist 80 years ago).

The modern Progressive movement is all about building constituencies. In the old days we used to call this graft. Now they call it entitlements.

[huskertim]

What do you guys think hurt the Dems the most: the bill passes or it doesn't pass? If you listen to Dick Morris on Fox news, it doesn't matter -- they are toast either way. Keep in mind that Dick is probably a bit bias since he has turn conservative since serving in the Clinton Administration. I keep hearing a sign of weakness if it doesn't pass or a sign of arrogance -- you are not listening to us -- if it does.

 

It seems like the Dems feel they have gotten so deep into this that it would be too late -- a sign of weakness -- to try over again and find a plan that would get 60 percent approval from this country. It seems to be an all or nothing situation. According to Dick Morris, that was the mentality of Hillary when she and her husband try to pass a health reform bill. When Dick suggested she try smaller, her answer was it's either this or nothing.

 

Now I also blame the Republicans for not being aggressive enough with their health plan, which includes interstate buying of health insurance, Tort Reform and putting people in high risk pools with pre-existing conditions. They have not been nearly as persistent as the Dems. So they haven't help themselves with the "Party of No" image. And where were they when Bush and the Repubs were in power?

Big difference when you have just a simple majority as compared to a super majority. Bush got bit in the backside big time when he tried to reform SSI so he wasn't going to risk another political nightmare to tackle healthcare. The Democrats, with the help of the press effectively put together a smear and fear campaign against being able to invest 2-3% of your SSI into the market effectively killing the proposal.

 

Any bill passed by the Republican controlled House would have been effectively watered down or rendered garbage in the Senate. Other than 2003 when Republicans had 55 votes in the Senate, from 2001 to 2007 they had never had more than 51 votes.

 

The Dems would have filibustered to death any kind of tort reform---big law firms constitute much of their political contributions.

 

I am so happy someone remembers the SSI insolvancy debacle. Truth is though the Bush administration didn't see a health care crisis because there wasn''t one. At no time has there been a public outcry for universal healthcare. I don't remember the millions of protesters marching on DC to secure health coverage. But then again, I don't remember hugh swaths of the 1980s either. Universal Healthcare has always been a pipedream for the "progressives" and they saw this last election as a mandate for their political ideoligy (even though they ran it as a condemnation of the previous administration). With a complicite press, they created a crisis and, to quote Mrs Pelosi " never let a good crisis go to waste".

[Husker_x]

The simple nightmare of Obama's situation is this:

 

He had a supermajority in the Senate and sweeping majorities in the House. Whatever you democrats might be thinking, you may not––I repeat, not––blame the republicans for anything. The American people are to blame for this health care fiasco. They don't want this plan, and there is more evidence of this than that George Washington was our first president. What has happened under Obama is a level of corruption that's almost beyond belief. Witness, ladies and gentlemen, what happens when you give a political party anything even close to absolute power. They will do and say anything, change whatever rules, and buy, threaten, or silence the opposition in order to achieve their political ambitions. I can't believe there could be one person left in this country who sincerely believes that Barack Obama represents any kind of change, or God forbid, hope. He is now the figurehead of the swamp monster, oozing slime and corruption at every pore. He is synonymous with Washington––and worse, Chicago––politics.

 

Yet it's my personal belief that Obama is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the endless reliance on government to solve human problems. Our system is not designed to do this unless the need is absolute. Our system is designed to prevent tyranny, though with the early emergence of parties in our politics, it comes back in the form of a 'tyranny of the majority.' Give one party enough power and suddenly you have 'deem and pass' legislation, or legislation by edict, taking place not for bills that have passed both houses of congress with a bi-partisan consensus, but highly controversial legislation that is at this point moving forward solely for the purpose of trying to salvage political careers, and directly against the will of the American people.

 

Lastly, on whether the dems are hurt more if the bill passes or stalls––my answer is in line with what Morris has to say. It really doesn't matter, but the reason isn't because of what's int he bill, but the process that's been used to get us to where we are. Bribes, payoffs, back room deals, threats, procedural gimmicks, etc.––all used for the largest public entitlement package in a generation, and one which could cripple our health care system and economy in the short term. This broad reform is unnecessary in the first place. Incremental solutions could ease the cost of care and allow us time to examine the impact. But since Obama is a cult messiah, thinking small is't his style. He needs to wave a wand, and the people need to wave good bye.

[huzkerbob]

The simple nightmare of Obama's situation is this:

 

He had a supermajority in the Senate and sweeping majorities in the House. Whatever you democrats might be thinking, you may not––I repeat, not––blame the republicans for anything. The American people are to blame for this health care fiasco. They don't want this plan, and there is more evidence of this than that George Washington was our first president. What has happened under Obama is a level of corruption that's almost beyond belief. Witness, ladies and gentlemen, what happens when you give a political party anything even close to absolute power. They will do and say anything, change whatever rules, and buy, threaten, or silence the opposition in order to achieve their political ambitions. I can't believe there could be one person left in this country who sincerely believes that Barack Obama represents any kind of change, or God forbid, hope. He is now the figurehead of the swamp monster, oozing slime and corruption at every pore. He is synonymous with Washington––and worse, Chicago––politics.

 

Yet it's my personal belief that Obama is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the endless reliance on government to solve human problems. Our system is not designed to do this unless the need is absolute. Our system is designed to prevent tyranny, though with the early emergence of parties in our politics, it comes back in the form of a 'tyranny of the majority.' Give one party enough power and suddenly you have 'deem and pass' legislation, or legislation by edict, taking place not for bills that have passed both houses of congress with a bi-partisan consensus, but highly controversial legislation that is at this point moving forward solely for the purpose of trying to salvage political careers, and directly against the will of the American people.

 

Lastly, on whether the dems are hurt more if the bill passes or stalls––my answer is in line with what Morris has to say. It really doesn't matter, but the reason isn't because of what's int he bill, but the process that's been used to get us to where we are. Bribes, payoffs, back room deals, threats, procedural gimmicks, etc.––all used for the largest public entitlement package in a generation, and one which could cripple our health care system and economy in the short term. This broad reform is unnecessary in the first place. Incremental solutions could ease the cost of care and allow us time to examine the impact. But since Obama is a cult messiah, thinking small is't his style. He needs to wave a wand, and the people need to wave good bye.

 

Holy crap for a minute there I could have sworn I was listening to Glen Beck himself!!! Someone should give you paranoid f'ers a show on FOXnews, but only if you have the ability to cry on command........

[Husker_x]

 

Holy crap for a minute there I could have sworn I was listening to Glen Beck himself!!! Someone should give you paranoid f'ers a show on FOXnews, but only if you have the ability to cry on command........

 

Let's see.

 

Dribbling nonsense devoid of substance? Check.

 

Obligatory references to Fox News? Check.

 

Baseless ad hominem laced with profanity? Check.

 

And all in two hopelessly ungrammatical sentences. Color me impressed.

[huzkerbob]

 

Holy crap for a minute there I could have sworn I was listening to Glen Beck himself!!! Someone should give you paranoid f'ers a show on FOXnews, but only if you have the ability to cry on command........

 

Let's see.

 

Dribbling nonsense devoid of substance? Check.

 

Obligatory references to Fox News? Check.

 

Baseless ad hominem laced with profanity? Check.

 

And all in two hopelessly ungrammatical sentences. Color me impressed.

 

Your welcome.