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


6 responses to “Democrats Seek To "Slaughter" Constitution

  1. Michael Brown

    This entire process has been so unconstitutional on so many fronts, I can’t believe it won’t end up in front of the Supreme Court and be nullified. Congress should be given a do over by the SCOTUS.

    If they don’t all is lost.

    • The Supreme Court cannot declare a law unconstitutional until a case has been brought before it by someone with standing. Doing so would require that it have veto power over Congress. The Constitution does not grant it that power.

      Cases will be filed right away, of course. How long it takes them to reach the court is another matter. Even if the Court does rule parts of the law as unconstitutional the likelihood of them taking up whether health care falls under one of the delegated powers of Congress or not is unlikely.

      Any way you look at we are going to wind up with a socialist government unless the people wake up and start getting rid of any elected officials that do not defend the Constitution. Half way measures and compromises will not work. We are too far gone for that.

  2. On your point about bills that raise revenue originating in the House, the Senate used a shell bill for their version of health care. They took a bill that originated in the House but was sitting collecting dust, gutted it and put in the entire health care legislation as an amendment. Maybe that is technically not unconstitutional but it is thug politics at its worst. They should absolutely be thrown out. The sooner the better.

    • Thanks for the details. It is still unconstitutional, however. Revenue bills not only have to originate in the house they also have to be passed by the house before going to the Senate. The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill, they do not have the right to substitute a new bill and call it an amendment. Obviously the health care bill is not the same bill the House previously voted on and passed. Calling it an amendment does not make it so.

  3. Ken Majetich

    Wishful thinking ahead. perhaps, but by what means, or who would be able to initiate the process of impeachment of the speaker of the house, Harry Reid and the president. If this bill is pushed through by this “Slaughter solution” or any other unconstitutional means, they along with everyone in the caucus should be under impeachment immediately as traitors.

    • From Reference Edition U.S. Constitution

      1.2.9 The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

      1.3.8 The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

      1.3.10 And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

      1.3.11 Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:

      1.3.12 but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.