HEALTH CARE SLAUGHTER STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD

When this tactic was dreamed up by Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the House Rules Committee, it was met with near resounding laughter because of how ludicrous the notion was. It literally proposes deeming a Bill has having been passed because the House doesn't have enough votes to actually pass it.

It now appears that the Democrats in the House are planning to move ahead with that strategy.

Via Gateway Pundit, here is Democratic Representative Chris Van Holland (D-MD) appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.



The stickling point here is that in order to use Reconciliation in the Senate - 51 votes instead of 60 to break a filibuster - the House has to pass the Senate Bill as is. The problem is the abortion language in the bill is something pro-life Democrats cannot live with - taxpayer funded abortions.

Pelosi obviously does not have the votes and isn't confident about getting them. That is the only possible explanation for moving forward with this blatantly unconstitutional strategy. Relevant excerpt of Constitution via Doug Ross:

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...

Also appearing on Fox News Sunday was Minority House Whip, Eric Cantor who actually spoke out quite forcefully about this tactic's constitutionality.



Grace-Marie Turner at National Review writes that the unconstitutionality of the whole process is being shhhed by Van Hollen for good reason:

The Slaughter Strategy would allow the Senate bill to be approved by the House via a “self-executing rule.” (These terms, straight out of a Dickens novel, may well describe what will happen to Democrats who try this.) It is not surprising that Pelosi lieutenant Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) has warned members to avoid any talk of the unconstitutional way they plan to pass the Senate bill.

Barack Obama's expertise has always been, keeping his fingerprints off bad things - real estate deal with Rezko notwithstanding - but if he knowingly signs an unconstitutional bill, his fingerprints will be on it.

If that is how this bill passes, every Republican candidate in 2010 should run on a platform that includes a promise to introduce impeachment resolutions against the President.

h/t to Free Republic

SLAUGHTER SOLUTION SLAUGHTERS REALITY

Unbelievable, even for this congress. The current impasse on the Obamacare monstrosity involves the requirement that the House pass the Senate Bill as it is currently written so that the Senate can then pass with the "Byrd Rule" or Reconciliation. The House is balking due to the abortion language - the Senate Bill has verbiage that would allow taxpayer-funded abortion.

What to do, what to do? Enter Louise Slaughter and her "Slaughter Solution". Via the Washington Examiner, the National Journal reports:

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.

Just to clarify, in order for the Slaughter Solution to be used, the House will have to consider the Senate Bill as "passed" even though the only way for that to be possible would be if the House passes it, which it does not have the votes to do. This is all beyond surreal.

Not only is the notion that the spirit of the Byrd rule is a source of much controversy, which should make it the Democrats' last option but because they're even having difficulty going that route, the head of their Rules committee in the House is literally proposing a rule that would necessarily require this law to be passed by sending it through an alternate reality.

Again, Democrat Robert Byrd in 2001 recounting his conversation with Bill Clinton in 1993 in which an adamant Byrd apparently told Clinton that using Reconciliation to pass health care was unequivocally NOT in the spirit of his Rule.



h/t to Free Republic