http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDE1MDE3MDJlMTQ3MDZmNTk5MTczMGUyYjczYzdiZTc=

I don’t see the H.J. Res language. That being the case, are these examples the same as passing a major piece of legislation?

The best formula for fiscal responsibility is a Dem President and a Republican controlled Congress.

The Congress is a separate branch of government. Each house gets to create its own rules. Rules have been used to pass other bills before and as long as a majority can, at any time, alter the rule then it passes constitutional muster (this has been tested before with multiple cases).

The issue with the Slaughter Rule, and why it may be unconstitutional, is that its language around “self executing” may be so restrictive that it actually ends up modifying the Senate bill. In that case, the “presentment clause” is violated because the president won’t be signing wording in the bill that was identical in both the House and Senate.

Until we see the rule’s language and the language of “the second bill” we can’t be certain.

In the meantime, to use such a rule with the stated intention of avoiding responsibility for the outcome is political suicide.

Pop more popcorn – more political theater to come.

But never to nationalize 1/6 of the economy.

I’m of the belief this inherently unconstitutional procedure should NEVER be used. But looking at the root problem as a matter of degrees – Dems are clearly beyond rehabilitation. I think GOP can be shamed into a transformation of sorts – if We The People keep up the pressure. But I grant you there is still much work to be done before we can say any collection of professional politicians deserves out trust.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take our present peril]

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
03/16/10 7:54 AM EDT

You’ve been hearing a lot this week about the Slaughter Solution, the rule devised by House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York whereby the House would pass an Obamacare reconcilliation bill via a rule that “deems” the chamber to have voted for the Senate version of Obamacare even though no such recorded vote was actually taken.

It’s been dubbed the “Slaughter Solution in the media. I prefer to call the Alice in Wonderland way of passing Obamacare.

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here’s the argument they made:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

“Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.” (Emphasis added)

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter

If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it’s the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.

Of course, there is one major difference between 2005 and 2010. Debt limit increases are routine in Congress and have been for decades. But to place the American private health care system under government control — effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy — that has never been done before.

Read all about it here and here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Slaughter-went-to-court-against-GOPs-self-executing-rule-in-2005—87773712.html#ixzz0iLe6uOLT

If we survive this year, I can’t wait to call out these career politicians on the Right who love government every bit as much as the ones on the Left, just for slightly different reasons.