Merged Slaughter the House Bill / Pass without voting

[applecorped]

"Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-without-a-vote-on-Senate-bill-87267402.html
​

 

[leftysergeant]

Could you possibly find another source for that information that explains it in terms a rational human being can understand? I do not speak Right-Wing Nutbarese.

I have no idea what the rule is to which the whackadoodles in the first article refer.

 

[Wolrab]

Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is the author of the rule. She is about as right wing as they get (except she's not).
Do try to keep up.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

He was implying that the article is right-wing, do try and keep up.

 

[theprestige]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the changes made to a bill by the Senate during reconciliation would not have to be passed by a vote of the House of Representatives, right?

That by voting to send their own version of the bill (pre-Senate changes) to reconciliation, this rule would automatically pass the post-reconciliation Senate version without another vote from the House?

 

[Brainster]

You have to almost admire the Democrats for their deviousness. However, "I didn't vote for the bill, I voted to say it had passed," doesn't sound like a very convincing excuse.

 

[theprestige]

You have to almost admire the Democrats for their deviousness. However, "I didn't vote for the bill, I voted to say it had passed," doesn't sound like a very convincing excuse.

It would also, I imagine, guarantee the death of a thousand cuts for Obama's visionary health care reform.

I mean, if it were to get passed on the basis of this rule, nobody would ever consider it legitimate. Nobody would take it seriously. Any time anybody tried to force someone to take it seriously, it would end up in court. It would never be implemented. It would hang like a dead albatross around Obama's neck for the rest of recorded history.

Passing an otherwise-unpassable law on a rules-committee technicality is probably the least ideal outcome possible. It definitely falls pathetically short of the passage by a large majority and a clear mandate Obama was hoping for in July 2009, when he insisted the time for debate was over and the time for voting was now.

 

[drkitten]

You have to almost admire the Democrats for their deviousness. However, "I didn't vote for the bill, I voted to say it had passed," doesn't sound like a very convincing excuse.

It would if I thought that the article cited in the OP bore any relationship to reality whatsoever. It sounds less plausible even than the "death panels" that the right-wing press was beating the drum about that were shown to be complete lies.

ETA: and the fact that the article is still pushing this proven lie: "How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc."

... just detracts from the little credibility it had.

 

[theprestige]

It would if I thought that the article cited in the OP bore any relationship to reality whatsoever. It sounds less plausible even than the "death panels" that the right-wing press was beating the drum about that were shown to be complete lies.

ETA: and the fact that the article is still pushing this proven lie: "How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc."

... just detracts from the little credibility it had.

So what does the Slaughter Rule do, exactly? What specific procedural problem does it solve? In what specific way does it improve the House process for passing legislation?

 

[Brainster]

It would if I thought that the article cited in the OP bore any relationship to reality whatsoever. It sounds less plausible even than the "death panels" that the right-wing press was beating the drum about that were shown to be complete lies.

ETA: and the fact that the article is still pushing this proven lie: "How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc."

... just detracts from the little credibility it had.

A less partisan source:

Instead, the House would craft a special piece of legislation declaring the Senate bill to have been passed by the House when the House approves its package of “fixes” under the budget reconciliation process. That would spare House members of the perception of endorsing politically explosive Senate deals such as the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

 

[theprestige]

A less partisan source:

...declaring the Senate bill to have been passed by the House when the House approves its package of “fixes”...

What package of fixes is being referred to, here? Does the rule mean the Senate bill passes in the House when the House approves the House package, or when the House approves the Senate package?

And, again, what specific problem is being solved? How is the law-passing process improved, exactly, by this rule change?

 

[Beerina]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the changes made to a bill by the Senate during reconciliation would not have to be passed by a vote of the House of Representatives, right?

That by voting to send their own version of the bill (pre-Senate changes) to reconciliation, this rule would automatically pass the post-reconciliation Senate version without another vote from the House?

I find it hard to believe this would pass constitutional muster. It would certainly break precedence. "We voted on one version, and we hereby pre-approve whatever the Senate/reconciliation spits out, ahead of time."

Congress is already forbidden from offloading its legislative powers precisely to keep them from becoming laws without (direct) representation. Regulatory agencies already strain this argument*. I do not believe the Constitution was designed to let a law pass without elected officials voting on the wording of the law.

It may be a right-wing slobberiffic talking point, but I doubt it would get anywhere with the SC.




* The primary argument for regulatory agencies is that it removes politics from the decisions. This is, of course, the reason to have Congress voting on things directly -- to hold elected officials accountable. Worse, a secondary reason is that there are "too many" things to be regulated and Congress doesn't have the time. This is arguably an even more pathetic claim because, if it is true then what does that say about the silliness of expecting the population to somehow have the time to understand and obey them all?

 

[theprestige]

I find it hard to believe this would pass constitutional muster. It would certainly break precedence. "We voted on one version, and we hereby pre-approve whatever the Senate/reconciliation spits out, ahead of time."

That's my point exactly.

But as drkitten tells us upthread, this interpretation of the rule bears no "relationship to reality whatsoever". The good doctor finds it "less plausible even than the "death panels" that the right-wing press was beating the drum about that were shown to be complete lies."

So, drkitten, if the Slaughter Rule as described in the OP article is a complete lie, then what does the real Slaughter Rule do? What is the correct, truthful interpretation of the rule?

 

[INRM]

This sounds like a very manipulative and bad idea

 

[Wolrab]

He was implying that the article is right-wing, do try and keep up.

I was referring to

I have no idea what the rule is to which the whackadoodles in the first article refer.

.
Slaughter represents an adjoining district of mine (she might have been my representative in some previous gerrymandered district).

This will blow up in the Democratic Party's face.

 

[Freddy]

The Slaughter rule made more sense before the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that Obama had to sign the Senate bill before reconciliation can take place. If that weren't required, then the House could pass their fixes, deem the Senate bill "passed" by implication, and then the Senate could pass those fixes through reconciliation before the bill is presented to Obama for his signature. (If the Senate altered the fixes, the House would have to vote again in order to satisfy the Constitution's bicameralism requirement, but the filibuster in the Senate would still be avoided.)

This would have alleviated the concerns of House Democrats who don't like the Senate bill and don't trust the Senate to follow through with reconciliation after Obama has already signed the Senate bill into law. The Senate would be under no obligation to reconcile the bill under those circumstances.

But since Obama has to sign the bill before the Senate can proceed with reconciliation, the only possible benefit would be to give the House Democrats a political fig leaf. Not really worth it unless a sufficient number of House Democrats are unwilling to vote for the Senate bill but willing to go the Slaughter route. I don't see why that would be the case, since no one would buy that excuse, as Brainster pointed out.

Is this Constitutional? Probably not, I think. But that's far from certain. The House gets to make its own rules, but only within Constitutional limits. Article I section 7 of the Constitution requires that an identical bill pass both houses of Congress. Whether "deeming" counts as passing the bill is unclear. The House would essentially be passing two pieces of legislation with one vote, in order to avoid accountability for voting for the Senate bill. Arguably within the letter of the Constitution, but it sure doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the Constitutional requirement, which is intended, at least in part, to promote accountability of legislators.

Of course, this says nothing of whether it would be politically wise to try this. I think it would be a huge mistake.

 

[Freddy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the changes made to a bill by the Senate during reconciliation would not have to be passed by a vote of the House of Representatives, right?

That by voting to send their own version of the bill (pre-Senate changes) to reconciliation, this rule would automatically pass the post-reconciliation Senate version without another vote from the House?

Only if the Senate accepted all of the House's fixes. If the Senate altered the fixes, the House would have to vote again and pass whatever the Senate sends back to them. The bill cannot be presented to Obama for his signature until both houses of Congress have passed exactly the same piece of legislation, word for word.

 

[applecorped]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

 

[Freddy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

It is commonly used to add unpopular but necessary amendments to bills. It is usually bipartisan when it is used, because neither party wants to be on record voting, say, to raise the debt ceiling. It is not commonly used to pass entire bills, especially a controversial bill like this one on a party line vote.

I like that Nancy Pelosi admits that the purpose of this strategy is to avoid accountability for passing a bill that she insists most Americans want. She must be so humble that she doesn't want the credit the American people would lavish on those voting yea. What a snake.

 

[INRM]

Pass first vote-later?

How many people are needed to do such a thing with a bill? Also when the "vote-later" part comes up, what if they all said no?