Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (78382)	3/17/2010 2:05:26 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

House GOPers seeking ways to force roll call vote on Obamacare, ban Slaughter Solution UPDATED: Newest GOPer to offer resolution By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 03/16/10 10:54 AM EDT House Republican leaders are considering introducing a resolution today that would read along the following lines: "Insuring an up or down vote on certain health care legislation. "Resolved, That the Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that provides for disposition of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590, an Act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unless such rule or order provides for— "(1) at least one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or their designees; and "(2) a requirement that the Speaker put the question on disposition of the Senate amendments and that the yeas and nays be considered as ordered thereon." It's not clear whether this would be a privileged resolution or if House Democrats would be able to prevent its introduction or a recorded vote on it. Stay tuned. UPDATE: Newest Republican House member will sponsor Looks like Rep. Parker Griffith, R-AL, who switched from the Democratic to the Republican party only weeks ago, will offer the anti-Slaughter Solution resolution. Makes sense, as Griffith said a major factor in his decision to switch parties was his disgust over Obamacare and the rush to pass it over public opposition. UPDATE: GOP to wait till later in the week What Griffith will offer, assuming plans don't change will be a standard House resolution, as the "previous question." Asked if the Democratic leadership can prevent the resolution, a senior GOP aide responded: "They can't stop us from offering it and getting a vote." So why announce it now? Could it be the GOP leadership want to give the public as much as possible to absorb what the House Democratic leaders are doing? One thing is certain: The more people have known about Obamacare and the tactics used to advance it in Congress, the more the opposition has grown. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (78382)	3/17/2010 2:16:47 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Pelosi, Slaughter went to court with Public Citizen against GOP in 2005 case that exposes Slaughter Solution flaw By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 03/16/10 7:54 AM EDT You've been hearing a lot this week about the Slaughter Solution, the rule devised by House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York whereby the House would pass an Obamacare reconcilliation bill via a rule that "deems" the chamber to have voted for the Senate version of Obamacare even though no such recorded vote was actually taken. It's been dubbed the "Slaughter Solution in the media. I prefer to call the Alice in Wonderland way of passing Obamacare. But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase. But there was a minor difference between the two chambers' versions resulting from a clerical error. Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, citing the difference between the two texts? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here's the argument they made: <<< "Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). "Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate. "Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses." (Emphasis added) >>> It's important to be clear that the issue before the court was whether a minor text correction was sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both chambers of Congress must pass the exact same bill. In this 2005 case, the court ruled the minor correction was acceptable. The deeming of an entire bill to have been passed without a prior recorded vote goes far beyond a minor text correction, so the constitutional principle clearly would be violated by the Slaughter Solution. And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs: Nancy Pelosi Henry Waxman Louise Slaughter If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it's the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House. Of course, there is one major difference between 2005 and 2010. Debt limit increases are routine in Congress and have been for decades. But to place the American private health care system under government control -- effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy -- that has never been done before. Read all about it here and here. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com