Daily Archives: March 13, 2010

Health Care Protest at Melissa Bean's Office

Submitted by Michael Brown

Vodpod videos no longer available.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Health Care Protest at Melissa Bean’s Office

Submitted by Michael Brown

Vodpod videos no longer available.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Democrats Seek To "Slaughter" Constitution

Congressional Democrats must be in line for some type of recognition reward.  Surely, they must have earned the world record for mucking up a constitutional form of government in the shortest amount of time ever. The latest Democrat attempt to socialize health care is called the “Slaughter Solution” named after Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Chairperson of the House Rules Committee, who thought up the cockamamie plan.

The strategy is so outlandish that even the most informed members of Congress are confused as to how it will work and what the results will be. Perhaps the best explanation is found in the Daily Caller.  “Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate [health care] bill is ‘deemed passed’.  So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place”.  Got that?

As I understand the plan, the House will be asked to vote on a “reconciliation” bill that does not yet exist.  Tucked away in the bill will be a provision considering the original Senate health care bill as “passed“. The Senate bill will then be presented to President Obama for his signature, after which it will become law. After it becomes law, it will be amended to satisfy the demands of Democratic Congressmen who object to many of its provisions. At least, that’s the promise.

The only comparable instance of a similar maneuver I can think of was when the states ratified the Constitution on the promise that a Bill of Rights would be added later.  Had not James Madison been a member of the first Congress, the Bill of Rights would probably never have been added to the Constitution. Congress, using what they claimed as more important matters to put off its consideration would have delayed proposing the amendments until the states decided a Bill of Rights was not necessary after all, or the people forced Congress to act.  Take it from me; the Democratic Party does not have a James Madison in it ranks today.

The whole health care mess is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it is difficult to know where to begin.  The underlying Senate Bill itself is unconstitutional on two points that cannot be disputed.  Article I, Section Seven of the Constitution says, (1.7.1) “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”;… The Senate Bill contains a number of provisions for raising revenue.  Since it originated in the Senate and not the House it is therefore unconstitutional.  Second, the supervision of America’s health care is not one of the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution.  Therefore, the responsibility for providing for the nation’s health care needs falls on the people, community or county governments, and at the highest level, on state governments.  Responsibility can never rise to the level of the Federal government under the Constitution.

The fact that health care is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government is completely ignored by both political parties and the vast majority of the American people, so it is probably a waste of time to even bring it up.

In addition to the unconstitutionality of the original bill, the proposed process for implementing the “Slaughter solution” violates the lawmaking provisions of the Constitution also found in Article I, Section 7. “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the President of the United States…” Every bill, in order to be valid, must be voted on and passed by both houses of Congress before being presented to the President for his signature.  Under Slaughter’s proposal, actual voting on the bill itself would not be required. Instead it would be “deemed as passed” along with the “reconciliation bill”.

This process is clearly a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The purpose for attempting the maneuver is to spare congress members from having a recorded vote on the Senate bill. Without a recorded vote they can claim to their constituents that they did not vote for it.

Under parliamentary procedures any member can call for a recorded vote in which the yeas and nays are recorded in the Congressional Record. This maneuver would eliminate the possibility of that little problem coming up.  If the “Slaughter Solution” were allowed it would eliminate completely the ability of anyone to ever again make the claim that “America is a nation of laws, not of men”. Constitutional government would be abolished and we would be left at the mercy of the dictatorial powers of a progressive (socialist) oligarchy for whatever freedoms we are able to preserve. It cannot be allowed to stand.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Join Today
Illinois Conservative Action Network
Make a difference

Democrats Seek To “Slaughter” Constitution

Congressional Democrats must be in line for some type of recognition reward.  Surely, they must have earned the world record for mucking up a constitutional form of government in the shortest amount of time ever. The latest Democrat attempt to socialize health care is called the “Slaughter Solution” named after Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Chairperson of the House Rules Committee, who thought up the cockamamie plan.

The strategy is so outlandish that even the most informed members of Congress are confused as to how it will work and what the results will be. Perhaps the best explanation is found in the Daily Caller.  “Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate [health care] bill is ‘deemed passed’.  So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place”.  Got that?

As I understand the plan, the House will be asked to vote on a “reconciliation” bill that does not yet exist.  Tucked away in the bill will be a provision considering the original Senate health care bill as “passed“. The Senate bill will then be presented to President Obama for his signature, after which it will become law. After it becomes law, it will be amended to satisfy the demands of Democratic Congressmen who object to many of its provisions. At least, that’s the promise.

The only comparable instance of a similar maneuver I can think of was when the states ratified the Constitution on the promise that a Bill of Rights would be added later.  Had not James Madison been a member of the first Congress, the Bill of Rights would probably never have been added to the Constitution. Congress, using what they claimed as more important matters to put off its consideration would have delayed proposing the amendments until the states decided a Bill of Rights was not necessary after all, or the people forced Congress to act.  Take it from me; the Democratic Party does not have a James Madison in it ranks today.

The whole health care mess is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it is difficult to know where to begin.  The underlying Senate Bill itself is unconstitutional on two points that cannot be disputed.  Article I, Section Seven of the Constitution says, (1.7.1) “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”;… The Senate Bill contains a number of provisions for raising revenue.  Since it originated in the Senate and not the House it is therefore unconstitutional.  Second, the supervision of America’s health care is not one of the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution.  Therefore, the responsibility for providing for the nation’s health care needs falls on the people, community or county governments, and at the highest level, on state governments.  Responsibility can never rise to the level of the Federal government under the Constitution.

The fact that health care is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government is completely ignored by both political parties and the vast majority of the American people, so it is probably a waste of time to even bring it up.

In addition to the unconstitutionality of the original bill, the proposed process for implementing the “Slaughter solution” violates the lawmaking provisions of the Constitution also found in Article I, Section 7. “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the President of the United States…” Every bill, in order to be valid, must be voted on and passed by both houses of Congress before being presented to the President for his signature.  Under Slaughter’s proposal, actual voting on the bill itself would not be required. Instead it would be “deemed as passed” along with the “reconciliation bill”.

This process is clearly a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The purpose for attempting the maneuver is to spare congress members from having a recorded vote on the Senate bill. Without a recorded vote they can claim to their constituents that they did not vote for it.

Under parliamentary procedures any member can call for a recorded vote in which the yeas and nays are recorded in the Congressional Record. This maneuver would eliminate the possibility of that little problem coming up.  If the “Slaughter Solution” were allowed it would eliminate completely the ability of anyone to ever again make the claim that “America is a nation of laws, not of men”. Constitutional government would be abolished and we would be left at the mercy of the dictatorial powers of a progressive (socialist) oligarchy for whatever freedoms we are able to preserve. It cannot be allowed to stand.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Join Today
Illinois Conservative Action Network
Make a difference