Pelosi May Say Screw It And Just "Deem" Health Care As Passed Without Vote.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Washington (CNN) -- Can the House of Representatives pass a health care bill without actually voting on it?

That question -- bizarre to most casual political observers -- took center stage Tuesday as top House Democrats struggled to find enough support to push President Obama's top legislative priority over the finish line.

The House is expected to vote this week on the roughly $875 billion bill passed by the Senate in December. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.

Pelosi's problem: A lot of House Democrats don't like the Senate bill. Among other things, some House members have expressed concern the Senate bill does not include an adequate level of subsidies to help middle- and lower-income families purchase coverage. They also object to the Senate's proposed tax on high-end insurance plans. The House passed its more-expansive health care bill in November.

Pelosi's solution: Have the House pass the Senate bill, but then immediately follow up with another vote in both chambers of Congress on a package of changes designed in part to make the overall legislation more acceptable to House Democrats.

Now, Pelosi also may try to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Republicans will try to block the procedure. They will try to force a vote on a resolution requiring the Senate health care bill to be brought to an up-or-down vote.

The Democratic plan is "the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," Boehner said.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, referred to the maneuver as Pelosi's "scheme and deem" plan Tuesday morning. He called it "jaw-dropping in its audacity."

The "process has been tainted," he said on the Senate floor. This "will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative sleight of hand in history. ... Make no mistake: This will be a career-defining and a Congress-defining vote."

He said the "entire effort has been a travesty."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, sought to brush aside the GOP complaints, telling reporters that Republicans have used the maneuver -- also known as a "self-executing rule" -- more often than Democrats in the past.

"Process is interesting," Hoyer said. "But in the final analysis what is [more] interesting [to] the American public is what this bill will do for them and their families to make their lives ... more secure."

Hoyer said House Democratic leaders haven't made any final decisions regarding the process that will be used to try to pass the Senate bill. But he defended the self-executing rule as a legitimate tactic and promised the House will vote on the Senate bill "in one form or another."

Congress first used the self-executing rule in 1933, according to a memo that Morris sent to reporters Tuesday. Morris noted the rule is typically used on votes to increase the debt limit. He also argued it has been used "far more often by Republicans than by Democrats."

The spat over the rule is the second major procedural argument to erupt between Democrats and Republicans in the health care debate in recent weeks.

GOP leaders also are fuming over Democrats' decision to use a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, which will allow changes to the health care bill to clear the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof, 60-seat supermajority in January with the election of GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Republicans contend that reconciliation, which is limited to provisions pertaining to the budget, was never meant to facilitate passage of a sweeping reform measure such as the health care bill. Democrats point out that reconciliation was used to pass several major bills in recent years, including George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Democratic leaders also have indicated they need to do whatever is necessary to bring closure to what has become an acrimonious yearlong debate. Obama has pushed for a final congressional vote in recent weeks.

"I think people have come to the realization that this is the moment," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

If enacted, the Democratic reform proposal would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The plan is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

The Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by about $118 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Congressional Republicans contend the plan amounts to an ill-conceived government takeover of the country's health care system. They have said it will do little to slow spiraling medical costs. They also argue it will lead to higher premiums and taxes for middle-class families while resulting in deep Medicare cuts.

Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans have turned against the administration's health care reform plan, though individual elements of the proposal remain widely popular.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed.

The Slaughter Rule: Yet Another Reason Obamacare Would Be Unconstitutional

As written, the current health care bill before Congress already is guaranteed to face serious constitutional challenges on enumerated powers, 5th Amendment, racial discrimination, and unequal state treatment. Now the White House seems determined to add a whole new reason courts will throw out Obamacare on sight. Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and former-federal judge Michael McConnell explains:

To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

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. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/15/the-slaughter-rule-yet-another-reason-obamacare-will-be-unconstitutional/

[Peikko 1,575]

No one has posted the Pelossi blimp ad yet? VJ OT is slipping...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Dems really want to shove this down our throats. I don't hear a peep from the VJ lefties. You would think this is low for even them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Isn't this how government in the US is done?

It doesn't make sense for foreigners like me, but isn't this what the bush administration and the GOP majority were up to in 2004?

Be outraged by all of it or none of it, stop trying to score petty points on a message board. Anyone who is genuinely concerned can find a better and more productive outlet for their outrage.

[Peikko 1,575]

http://www.breitbart.tv/exclusive-demon-sheep-ad-creator-strikes-again-with-zeppelin-boxer/

Sorry, my mistake, that's Boxer - thought it was Pelossi. Still funny though, funny on so many, many levels

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.breitbart.tv/exclusive-demon-sheep-ad-creator-strikes-again-with-zeppelin-boxer/

Sorry, my mistake, that's Boxer - thought it was Pelossi. Still funny though, funny on so many, many levels

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Isn't this how government in the US is done?

It doesn't make sense for foreigners like me, but isn't this what the bush administration and the GOP majority were up to in 2004?

Be outraged by all of it or none of it, stop trying to score petty points on a message board. Anyone who is genuinely concerned can find a better and more productive outlet for their outrage.

Every outlet is important. Even if one person is paying attention on each outlet, it's one more than was before.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's very idealistic, but not very realistic.

Noone gives a toss about what people write on niche subforums of niche messageboards.