Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Democrat Chicanery

Democrat Chicanery

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Here is a little known bit of chicanery Democrats tried to use back in 2010, when they still controlled the House of Representatives. They tried to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) deemed passed. Then speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to “deem” that the House has passed the Senate version of Obamacare, then send it to President Obama to sign.

In order to get the necessary 60 votes to pass the Obamacare bill in the Senate, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) had to include some, shall we say, unfavorable amendments, such as the Cornhusker kickback that Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) demanded, which exempted the state of Nebraska from paying the state’s share of Medicaid expansion, as well as other state-specific payoff amendments.

The Senate passed its version of Obamacare at 8 AM on December 24, 2009. But Pelosi, wanting to act quickly, feared that there were not the votes in the House to pass a bill identical to the one passed by the Senate. House Democrats hated the thought of having to be on record voting for all the bribes to which Reid resorted. So Pelosi prevailed upon Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the House Rules Committee, (hence the name Slaughter rule or Slaughter solution) to invoke the self-executing rule, also known as a hereby rule. Under this amazing procedural rule, the House would vote on reconciliation corrections, but not on the Senate-worded bill. If those reconciliation corrections passed, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate worded bill is approved by the House, even without a vote on the actual wording of the Senate bill. Self-executing rules have been used in the past, but never before to avoid a vote on an entire legislation. Pelosi could then send the Senate bill, loaded with payoff amendments, to President Obama for his signature, while House Democrats claimed to oppose the Senate bill, thereby declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill at the same time. Fortunately, Democrats lost control of the House before any of this could be enacted.

The two-votes-in-one chicanery is an attempt to circumvent the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution clearly states 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 have a conference committee to work out differences in bills each body passes.

Democrats tried, when they were in power, to have us enter a political wonderland where the rules were whatever Democrats said they were. Pelosi and the White House were resorting to these abuses because their bill was so unpopular that a majority of their own party didn’t want to vote for it.

In 2010, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), was ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee. He said, “With the Slaughter solution, House Democrats have exposed themselves as willing to abandon the most fundamental element of legislating, a transparent up-or-down vote, in order to achieve a unpopular partisan objective.”

BTW, Senate rules originally called for 67 senators to vote cloture. That rule was changed to 60 votes in 1917. By agreement between the Senate leader and the vice president, the Senate at the start of any session could reduce the number required to limit debate from 60 to 55. Further, the US Constitution, in Article 1, Section 5, states: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,…” Still further, some Constitutional scholars argue that, on the first day the Senate convenes, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and can be changed by majority vote. Under this interpretation, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well. But I digress.

The Supreme Court of the US has agreed to hear arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare itself. Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general and worked on Obamacare, has yet to recuse herself. But that is the subject of another article.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • Glenn Contrarian

    *yawn*

    Yet another wide-eyed rant by Warren. I could spend another two or three hours pointing out the errors and inaccuracies in his claims just as I’ve done with every other article he’s written, but I really don’t have the time, this time.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Odd that you think it’s okay to use Dennis Miller’s sign-off to conclude your articles.

  • Clavos

    Odd that you think it’s not.

    It’s a common expression and was before Miller became famous.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    FYI, I’ve never watched Dennis Miller, so I really have no idea what either of you are talking about.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/2011/09/presidential-approval-so-what.html Tommy Mack

    It’s not “another wide-eyed rant” as much as an interesting take on the cited WSJ online opinion piece that uses the same picture of Louise Slaughter (D-NY). The phrase enter a political wonderland where the rules were whatever Democrats say they are appears there as well and in several other places.

    Tommy

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Even if Dennis Miller does use “but that’s just my opinion” as his sign-off, it’s a generic enough expression that Warren can’t really be accused of plagiarism here.

    It’s probably more an indication of lack of imagination than anything else.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment #1, Glenn, we’re waiting…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Do you really think I can’t? Come now.

    Sometimes I’m wrong, and I’m sincerely grateful when people show me I’m wrong…but I don’t insult, and I don’t lie. If I said I can refute you, then I most certainly can. But I also have a limited amount of time since I’ve got only one more day before I fly back stateside…and refuting your errors and inaccuracies as I have done every time before for your articles is not worth the hours it would take.

    That’s also why I haven’t submitted an article lately – I’m spending my time with my son, and I only blog when he’s not around.

    Besides, the others are at least as capable as I am of refuting you…if they really want to take the time to do so.

    Good night.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    But I’ll tell you this much – the ‘bribes’ you’re referring to have been a normal part of Congressional legislation since there’s been a Congress – indeed, that’s how Congress was designed to work by the Founding Fathers – through negotiation, deal-making, and that word that conservatives hate so much…compromise. That in and of itself destroys most of your complaint against Pelosi.

    That, and you complain about a Democratic parliamentary maneuver? Have you not paid attention to how the Republicans have since 2009 made Congress the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War? I described this to you under your last article. But I get it – if the Republicans play dirty, well, THAT’s okay with you, but if the Democrats are able to slip one by, in Warren World it’s “HEY – THE DEMOCRATS ARE CHEATING!”

    Okay? Now good night, sleep tight, and I wish you well.

%d bloggers like this: