tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post4107520318896016637..comments2023-10-09T04:11:47.358-07:00Comments on Not A Potted Plant: A Liberal Betrayal of AmericaBurt Likkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-46732828515486454332010-03-18T12:10:20.795-07:002010-03-18T12:10:20.795-07:00I'm getting a little lost in the ongoing horse...I'm getting a little lost in the ongoing horserace coverage of this bill. Is the vote that seems immiment for the Senate version of the bill, or the reconciliation bill a la Slaughter?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-65354016499654686592010-03-18T10:59:29.321-07:002010-03-18T10:59:29.321-07:00The initial problem may seem a little formalistic ...The initial problem may seem a little formalistic -- "deeming" a bill to have been passed is not the same thing as actually passing it. The words on the pages of the bill the House passes are going to be different than the words on the pages of the bill that the Senate already passed, in the hopes that the Senate will then pass the same words on the new House bill.<br /><br />By using the reconciliation process (which on its own terms is limited in scope only to the budget, not to other kinds of legislation like the health care reform bill), the vote on passing the House bill in the Senate falls under special procedural rules that prohibit filibusters. This is why the Republicans are so upset about it.<br /><br />My point is different. I bring up the President's involvement because it seems to me that if the House is "deemed" to have passed a bill, then <i>it has actually passed that bill.</i> So that means that there would be nothing to reconcile, the next step is to see what the President does with the bill Congress actually passed. The Slaughter rule would have Congress actually pass a bill (the Senate version), and then immediately yank it out of the Constitutional process of Presidential consideration, and then immediately amend it through a reconciliation process -- a process which under the Senate's rules is limited in scope to budget and taxation bills only.<br /><br />The alterantive view, which most people are taking, is that the Slaughter Rule allows the House to simultaneously pass and then amend the Senate bill, which means that the House is really passing a non-identical bill, resulting in there being no law to present to the President because both of the bills would fail under the rules.<br /><br />This likely violates the Constitution, either way -- either Congress passes non-identical bills but calls the result a "law," or it is usurping the President's veto power. <br /><br />But on further consideration, I'm coming around to the idea that the courts aren't going to get involved in this issue. My guess is that the courts are going to call this a "political question" and not make any ruling one way or the other, which means that effectively, the Democrats can have their way if they want to, and the Republicans get to try to use it as an issue at the ballot box in November.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-17409072457452027032010-03-18T10:11:48.841-07:002010-03-18T10:11:48.841-07:00Oops. "Misunderstanding," that is.Oops. "Misunderstanding," that is.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-39126678297960775282010-03-18T10:11:29.070-07:002010-03-18T10:11:29.070-07:00Perhaps I am understanding the so-called Slaughter...Perhaps I am understanding the so-called Slaughter Solution. It is my understanding that, by passing the reconciliation bill, the original bill from the Senate will have been "deemed" to have passed. The reconciliation bill, as passed by the House, would then be sent to the Senate, where it could pass with a simple majority. Thus, in my understanding, both the House and the Senate would end up voting on the text of the final bill that would end up becoming law. This strikes me as being in accordance with the Constitution. <br /><br />I am not anything like an expert in parliamentary procedure or constitutional law, so please correct me if I've gotten this wrong.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.com