The president and the Democratic congressional leadership are fighting furiously to pass, with no Republican votes, the ever-less-popular health bill. An Associated Press poll last week shows that four in five Americans don't want the Democrats to pass a health care bill without bipartisan support, while almost all polls are showing support for the current bill to be at only 25 percent to 35 percent. And all polls show high negative intensity.
The resistance of our governing system to passing so unpopular a bill is so powerful that it has driven Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairwoman of the Rules Committee Louise Slaughter -- at least for the moment -- to actually publicly consider violating the constitutional process for enacting laws.
Under their announced scheme, instead of following the constitutional voting process -- i.e., 1) The House first votes for the despised Senate bill, then 2) after that is signed into law by the president and 3) the Senate passes the popular amendments that the House wants, 4) the House votes for that second Senate bill of amendments, which, 5) the President then signs into law -- under the proposed scheme, the Senate bill would be "deemed" to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature. Then the Senate would pass the House-demanded amendments, and the House members would then cast only one vote -- for the amendments they like, rather than the underlying Senate bill they hate. Thus (so Pelosi's theory holds) politically protecting House members, who could say they never actually voted for the publicly despised Senate bill.
But, as has been pointed out in several venues in the last few days, Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before a bill becomes law, (1) "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it"; and, (2) "in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."
It is those two provisions of the Constitution that would be evaded: 1) the House vote, with the names and votes of the individual members publicly published, and 2) the president's signature. That is James Madison's precise 18th century version of transparency and accountability.
The Supreme Court has only recently emphasized that those procedures must be followed precisely. In Clinton v. New York City, 1998, (In which the court found the line-item veto as passed by Congress unconstitutional), Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion:
"The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became 'Public Law 105-33' after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may 'become a law.'" Article I, Section 7.
And: "The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only 'be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.' Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951."
Some have argued that the "Gephardt Rule" (House Rule XXVII) -- in which a similar "self-executing rule" "deemed" the House to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent. Wrong. That rule was for a joint resolution -- not a bill. A joint resolution is a guide to the House. It is not a bill under the Constitution and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill
__________________
When the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always rely on support from Paul. What happens when there are too many Pauls?
Sure you can trust the government, just ask an Indian.
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Notice who wrote the majority opinion on the Clinton VS New York. Justice Stevens the fence sitter. It will be very hard for him to contradict his prior position and now find it ok to pass laws this way.
__________________
When the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always rely on support from Paul. What happens when there are too many Pauls?
Sure you can trust the government, just ask an Indian.
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Since it won't pass Constitutional muster it's not a concern. I doubt that they have the votes for it anyway, the public backlash hasn't gone unnoticed by the fence straddlers in Congress. The House switchboard and website were both clogged to the point of shutdown today, mostly calls against the health care reform crap.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Since it won't pass Constitutional muster it's not a concern.
I remember the same thing being said about the Campaign Finance Bill (Mc Cain-Feingold) until it was affirmed by the Sup Ct. It finally was mitigated, a month or so ago, but was in effect for quite awhile. A lot of judges have views that don't even come close to being constitutional and it doesn't bother them a bit. You need to stop "the camel's nose" as soon as possible.
"The resistance of our governing system to passing so unpopular a bill is so powerful that it has driven Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairwoman of the Rules Committee Louise Slaughter -- at least for the moment -- to actually publicly consider violating the constitutional process for enacting laws."
I think you guys are wrong about the support for this. Pelosi is helping create a situation that could be used to change the constitution by vote. If that happens and it does change, it will be by the people who support health care reform.
The constitution has already been changed sufficiently enough so that a slight push is all it will taken to end it.
Quit reading headlines and snipits nodog. The constitution has change due to the inrestrianed Supreme Court. I understand in the Anti-Federalist papers we were warned about this unchecked branch of government. I'm looking forward to reading them to get a better perspective because it's here today.
__________________
When the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always rely on support from Paul. What happens when there are too many Pauls?
Sure you can trust the government, just ask an Indian.
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Quit reading headlines and snipits nodog. The constitution has change due to the inrestrianed Supreme Court. I understand in the Anti-Federalist papers we were warned about this unchecked branch of government. I'm looking forward to reading them to get a better perspective because it's here today.
Read the papers and read our history. Thanks for the free advice, I'll file it where I file all others like it.
constitutional_law_101
