The Slaughter Solution for health care reform
Well, back to the grindstone this week and back to discussing health care reform once again. As I was driving into work this morning, NPR’s Morning Edition was discussing that this is the week when health care reform is likely to come to
the floor of the House and subsequently to an up or down vote. It seemed that they are of the opinion that the Democrats in the House have resigned themselves to castigated, no matter what they do, so they have decided to go ahead and pass the legislation, by whatever means necessary. The two reporters who were having the discussion were very quick to point out, however, that the Democrats did not have the votes needed to pass the bill, at least not yet. One of the reporters, Cokie Roberts, mentioned the fact that the House of Representatives allows new rules to be written and enacted that will benefit the majority and that, my friends, brings us to a new point of discussion.
THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION
As a member of the Democratic majority in the House, Representative Louise Slaughter of New York is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and it looks like she is in the process of taking advantage of the aforementioned House rule. First mentioned last week and being termed The Slaughter Solution, it basically does the following, as reported in National Journal’s Congress Daily, via The Washington Examiner.
“House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
“Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
“Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. ‘Once the CBO gives us the score, we’ll spring right on it,’ she said.”
Am I understanding this right? Slaughter wants to write a rule that will deem the Senate version of health care reform passed by the House, without actually voting on the legislation itself? They want to be able to pass a bill that will correct some of the “problems” they have with the original legislation and call it good? Maybe there is a rule in the House that allows them to make rules that will benefit the majority, but does it allow them to go completely against the Constitution of the United States? As is being reported by Forgotten Liberty and The Current, doing so would go against Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. The quote below is from Forgotten Liberty.
This scheme to pass a bill without voting on it violates article 1 section 7 of the United States Constitution, which states that before any bill can become law, it most be passed by both houses of Congress with a Yea or Nay vote. If the Democrats go through with this rule change, it will be a bold faced attack on our Constitution and system of government. In effect, the role of Congress and our history of representative government will be done away with because a vote will no longer be required to pass a bill.
It seems that the Democrats, especially the leadership and the more progressive members of the party, are bent on 
passing this legislation and to the devil with the consequences. I suppose in one way, I can admire their determination to get this done, even if I do not agree with the need for such a massive piece of legislation. What I can not admire is this bold faced attack on the Constitution. How can they ignore such a blatant breech of the document that has served our country well for over two hundred years?
Heretofore, my arguments against the health care reform wanted by the Democrats have been based on the substance of the reform. That argument still holds true, as I do not believe either piece of legislation will do what they say they will do. Reform may be needed, but not on such a massive scale and certainly not in the way the Democrats are trying to dictate. That argument pales however, in comparison to the constitutionality of what they are attempting to do.
Over the weekend, I was reading an article at Conservative Hideout 2.0 that concerned the authority to manage our money supply and other related items and read a comment that has really stuck with me. You can read the article and the following comments for yourself, but here is what Matt said in the fourth comment on the article.
The fact is, as uncomfortable as it might be right now, that the Constitutional authority to coin and regulate lies with the Congress. If we pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to embrace, we are no better than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Even if we disagree with Congress on monetary matters, they still have the Constitutional authority to do so and I think that applies to health care reform as well. No matter how badly the Democrats think we need or want health care reform, they do not have the right to ignore the Constitution of the United States, but that is exactly what they are trying to do. We can not stick our heads in the sand on this, as it threatens the very foundation upon which our country is established. Louise Slaughter and anyone else who goes along with this needs to be publicly called out and held accountable for their actions.
I am so aggravated over this. It is obvious that the dems know they can’t win fair so lets cheat however we can.
Dominique´s last blog ..PERSEVANCE: the road to EMBRACING my DREAMS
Yes, you read that right. The Democrats are looking at passing a bill without voting on it. It is unbelievable the depths they will sink in order to pass this bill.
But I hate to admit it, this may not be unconstitutional after all. There may be a grey area here. Article 1 Section 7 does call for an up or down vote, but it comes directly following the language of a presidential veto override– does this only apply to veto overrides? I do not know, but Article 1 Section 5 states: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” does this give them the right to pass a bill without a vote? I don’t know the answer to that either but I do know that this can’t be something the founders would have intended or approved of.
Mr. Pink Eyes,
I see what you are saying and I know you are against them doing this. When I say I do not buy that excuse for a moment, I am aiming it directly at the Democrat leaders in Congress who are thinking of doing this. We have multiple members of Congress for a reason, ie. to legislate and to vote on said legislation. There is no way the founders of our great nation ever intended for the leaders of Congress to deem a piece of legislation as passed without an actual vote. I still think it is unconstitutional, but even if it isn’t, it certainly is a far cry away from the intentions of those who established our foundation in the Constitution.
Agreed Larry, even if this is not unconstitutional it flies in the face of the constitution and the very idea of having elected representation. Why elect representatives to vote for us if they are not even going to vote? Our representatives are supposed to represent us, not the administration.
The “Slaughter solution” strikes me as being completely unconstitutional. Even I am shocked that the Democrats would discuss it. I think if they proceed with this, they are dooming themselves, and I just don’t mean in November. Then again, I’ve been reading reports that indicating that all of the Senate “deals” will be added back into the legislation to ensure “cooperation,” so perhaps this is the last ditch plan in case all else fails.
Thanks for the quote and link LD. Jackie did a great job on that post.
Matt´s last blog ..A Tale of Two Protests: Coffee or Tea?
Great post LD. Thanks for the link. You’re spot-on when you say that any Democrat that supports this rule should be called out. I agree with Matt. I think if the Democrats use this tactic to get the bill pushed through they are done and I mean done for a long time.
Matt and John,
Glad to give the links, as both of the articles were great and deserved it.
One thing that I probably should have mentioned in the article, but didn’t, was the attitude of the reporters on NPR. They had a very cavalier attitude about the Democrats being able to write rules in the House that would benefit the majority. No mention of the unconstitutionality of it all. I normally enjoy listening to NPR, as I feel they give a good variety of opinions, even if they are slanted left, but they missed it on this one. The two reporters need to do a bit more research.
Here is a thought on the Slaughter Solution. If the Democrats use it to pass Health Care “reform”, it could give grounds to challenge the entire bill as unconstitutional. Then, if the Supreme Court decides that the bill is unconstitutional because it was never voted on by the House, we could get rid of the entire thing all at once and actually get to work on real solutions to health care. If they pass it without using the Slaughter Solution, then only portions of the bill could be challenged as unconstitutional, such as the section mandating that we all must buy insurance. So, if it is going to become law, I hope they use the Slaughter Solution because I believe the Supreme Court would strike it down.
Forgotten Liberty´s last blog ..Rep. Slaughter’s Plan to Trash the Constitution
Liberty,
I honestly can not believe they are even contemplating doing this. It just seems like it flies in the face of everything our country stands for.
I’m beginning to think that, that is the point.
Mark Steyn said something today that caught my attention. Do you realize that the progressives taking over 1/6 of our country economically would be equivalent to our government taking over the country of India 2 times over or England and France once over!
That is alarming to me!~ I think that really puts all of this into perspective. This is a power grab and they are the closest they have ever been!
Dominique´s last blog ..PERSEVANCE: the road to EMBRACING my DREAMS
Larry – I thought you might find this post interesting in light of your post!
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/03/14/question-could-the-president-of-the-united-states-be-arrested-for-illegally-signing-a-fraudulent-bill/
Dominique´s last blog ..PERSEVANCE: the road to EMBRACING my DREAMS
“It must pass both houses”. I don’t know how more clear it can be. They aren’t doing and end run around the constitution, they’re blatantly ignoring it.
rjjrdq´s last blog ..Doug Hoffman Will Seek Vengeance In November
Good post LD. You commented on my Slaughter Rule so I thought I’d come read yours. I like the layout and substance of your site. I’ll keep visiting.
Thanks for commenting, RightHandMan. Feel free to visit and comment all you like.
Larry – You’re surprised? You thought level heads would prevail? I’m not surprised at all and hopefully this will open people’s eyes and wake them up. I’m surrounded by people all day that think Mr. Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I’m sure they will interpret this as Obama fighting for them in the face of the “Corporate, war mongering, Republicans”. If they ram this through and it turns out to be truly unconstitutional then I don’t see how anyone can argue with the fact that Mr. Obama is a Marxist and is crapping all over the constitution.
USAWatchmen´s last blog ..Contact Your Representative About Health Care