Posted on 03/16/2010 7:39:23 AM PDT by La Lydia
Mark Tapscott points out that when the Republican-controlled Congress used a "self-executing" rule very similar to the "Slaughter rule" to raise the debt ceiling in 2005, Rep. Louise Slaughter — along with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman — went to court to try to reverse it...The bad news for present purposes is that they lost the case. The D.C. Circuit in Public Citizen v. U.S. District Court upheld the procedure. Upheld in this case does not mean endorsed. The Court did not say the self-executing rule was constitutional. It said it could not reach the question due to the standards of deference that apply between departments of government...
That doesn't mean it is proper for government officials to execute a procedure that violates the Constitution, nor does it mean that a presiding officer should attest something that is not true. It does, however, suggest that it may be an uphill battle to get a court to declare the process null and void.
...The key here is that in each instance, at issue was something that was non-controversial or almost ministerial — not, as with heathcare, an unpopular, bitterly opposed, ragingly controversial socialization of the private economy. I think Democrats are mistaking a customary short-cut for a substantive precedent...
If, instead, the legislative process becomes a farce that departs from the constitutional procedures we are entitled to enforce, then it no longer represents the consent of the governed. It is the first American principle that government derives its just powers only from the consent of the governed, and when it takes on a form that becomes destructive of the fundamental rights of the governed, it is no longer legitimate.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
I just read the case. The court will not even touch the question. If the leaders of the Senate and the House say it passed, it passed. It’s a political question, not a constitutional question.
So who votes for this “rule”, and how? I’m still confused about how exactly it turns an unpassed bill into law.
The House would vote for it. The “rule” or amendment, would be attached to the House reconciliation bill. When that bill passes the House, the “rule” passes, too.
The Rules Committee adopts a rule that says bill "x" is deemed to have passed if bill "y" passes.
Does every member of the House (at least all present) vote on it? is it a voice or recorded vote?
Andy is one of the best when it comes to analyzing the rule of law, so I usually take him quite seriously.
Another take on heading to Slaughter:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36042
So is it just the Rules Committee or is it the whole House body that votes on it?
Does someone have a link to the actual text of the rule?
They’re asking for a “million rifle march” on Washington, aren’t they?
I love Mark Levin, but I knew he was wrong, I suspect he did as well. While this does, IMHO, violate the spirit of the Constitution and the Founder's intent, as you say, it's not a justiciable problem for the Courts.
That is going to be a rather unpopular realization here, but Public Citizen is what it is.
Depends. House Rules for Roll Call votes
There are four ways in which a recorded vote may be demanded:
* Demand by one-fifth present: The Yeas and Nays may be demanded in the same way as in the Senate, by one-fifth of those present (but a quorum is not assumed present).
* Demand by one-fifth of quorum: A recorded vote may be demanded by forty-four members, or one-fifth of the quorum.
* Point of Order for lack of quorum: Recorded votes are automatically held when a member makes a point of order that a quorum is not present.
* Certain subjects: Recorded votes are automatically held when the House is voting on:
^a general appropriations bill,
^a bill seeking to raise taxes, or
^the annual budget resolution.
*However, when the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole (a Committee consisting of every member of the House, meeting to consider a bill in detail), a recorded vote may be held only by the demand of twenty-five members, and for no other reason.
That link is about Israel.
The rule is passed by the RC, and then, during markup, inserted into the legislation "y". Legislation "y", which in this instance is the Reconciliation Bill, is then voted on by the full House.
Does someone have a link to the actual text of the rule?"
I don't have time to look for it right now, but if I get a little time later on in the day, I'll FReepmail it to you. The website may be found here.
I read enough of it, and the complaint, to realize the subject wasn’t even the use of a “self executing” rule. In this case, the two chambers literally DID pass different laws, by voting on different language. And still, whatever was sent to the president (the Senate version) was held to be law.
Because after all, they won't rule on politics.
Or will they?
So did I.
I suspect he did as well.
So did I. He has to tell his listeners what they want to hear if he wants to stay in business. I've been going against the flow on this one. Most people insist that what they want to be true is true. Better to keep what "I" want to be true out of it and just figure out what IS true.
It appears to me that the court won't even hear it. They'll dismiss it. This is not a constitutional question--it's a POLITICAL question.
Notice how self-executing rules were not an issue around here when the GOP was using them. People don't really care about this stuff. If it helps pass something they are for, they will accept it. If it helps pass something they oppose, they will oppose it. That's why you now have the GOP trading sides of the same argument, just as they have changed sides in the filibuster argument (see my tagline).
I'll tell you what. If I ever (heaven forbid) need a good criminal attorney, I'll make sure he's a bleeding socialist liberal. They play the game with gusto, and chutzpah up the ying yang.
If the leaders of both houses say it passed, it passed. That’s the long-standing precedent of the court. It is not a constitutional question. It’s a political question.
“Of course the Slaughter rule is unconstitutional. The Constitution tells Congress to vote so it has to vote. But it is very unlikely that any court would find a case challenging the Slaughter rule to be justiciable.
Without the racial issues present in Powell v. McCormack, the courts are virtually certain to duck any dispute about the internal mechanics of Congress citing the Political Question Doctrine. This is particularly so where the constitutional violation at issue is trivial. The average intelligence of the electorate is only slightly above average (voters are probably a bit smarter than adults generally), but very few voters are going to be fooled by the Slaughter rule. It is the scantiest of fig leaves. Whether the House deems the Senate bill passed or passes it directly the voters will hold them responsible for their actions. The constitutional violation of following the Slaughter rule has no practical consequences sufficient to justify any judicial involvement.
The Slaughter rule clearly shows that the current leadership of Congress has contempt for its constitutional responsibilities. That's an excellent stick to beat the Dems with as we head into the next election which is just as it should be. Politics rather than litigation provide the remedy for the Dems lawlessness here. The courts aren't going to touch it. “
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.