11 thoughts on “Is The “Slaughter Rule” Constitutional?”

  1. Rand, does it really matter to us little folk whether the Slaughter Rule is constitutional or unconstitutional? It is whatever our masters in the House and Senate say it is. The fact is that us mere citizens, or should I say subjects, do not have standing in court to challenge the decrees of our masters on constitutional grounds makes all this mute. Until ordinary citizens are granted standing before a court to challenge whatever shenanigans go on in the House, Senate or the Executive Branch for that matter, the constitutionality of anything our government does is pretty much irrelevant.

  2. I’m sure Chris Gerrib would say it was constitutional, as long as it was done by progressives, but I wonder what Jim would say?

    BTW, wasn’t this how AGW science was settled?

  3. The Calvinball is gettin’ pretty ad hoc out there…

    Regardless, I have my mallet at the ready.

  4. The fact that the question has to even be asked tells me we are deep in the weeds on this one. Forcing a constitutional crisis to get your way is the ultimate in narcissism. Apparently history is supposed to begin and end with the Obama Presidency.

  5. I’m not a Constitutional Lawyer or Historian, but it looks like they went away from the Constitution LONG before this. I’ve been questioning their POWER to do much of what they do for years. At least as long ago as Ol’ Peanut Head Carter setting up the Department of Education.

    I questioned that, and luckily I had some older better educated guys in the Navy, who took the time to get me started reading more about history and our foundational documents than I’d gotten in school. Oddly, the one that really pushed me to read was a Viet Nam Vet, screaming liberal from AZ, who hated Jimmy Carter.

    He was weird, loud and smart as hell. He was the kind of person who would listen to your side of a discussion, but if you hadn’t do your homework, didn’t know how to defend your ideas, he’d eviscerate you. I learned to do my homework from sparing with him.

  7. Gerrib once again fails reading comprehension. There is no vote at the same time. There are two votes. The first vote is on the Senate version of the bill. Once passed, Obamacare meerly needs the President’s signature to become the law of the land.

    The second vote is on an amendment to the Senate bill. That’s were the “Slaughter Rule” comes into play. Can the House amend a Senate bill assuming the Senate already agreed? They can’t. The Reconcilation Bill is constitutional so long as the Senate agrees to pass the same exact bill. It’s a useless piece of garbage if it is not passed by the Senate.

    And also, Gerrib’s link is old. The Senate Parlimentarian has already weighed in.

    The hole thing is a shell game. Democrats hope to buy cover by saying, “we thought this would work, but then the Republicans blocked us from making it work”. But they will have already passed the Senate bill, and Obama will sign the bill before vacationing in Indonesia (because posting the bill for 5 days on the White House homepage before signature was a campaign promise with an expiration date).

    Once again, the American people are not as stupid as they want us to be. Any Democrat that votes yes, after promising to vote no to his constituents, will be branded a moron not worthy of dog catcher, much less being a Congressman.

  10. it looks like they went away from the Constitution LONG before this

    Yes, then they refer to unconstitutional actions in the past to confer legitimacy to unconstitutional actions going forward. Here’s an example:

    a “deeming resolution” is a fairly common occurence

    Votes on bills are required to be recorded (and specifically stated in the constitution) for the purpose of letting voters provide the check and balance intended. They are blatantly trying to get around that by playing with rules to sidestep that basic principle.

    Obviously, they have no principles.

Comments are closed.