Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Slaughter House Rules
Topic Started: Mar 16 2010, 02:43 AM (362 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Posted Image

:hair:
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
You come across as incredibly petty with that sort of thing, JB.

Have you noticed that Republicans mock the appearance of Democrats a heck of a lot more than Democrats mock the appearance of Republicans? It says a lot about character.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Of course, Republicans are prettier than Democrats.

[Waiting for Quirt to scour the internet for an unflattering picture of a Republican :lol: ]
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Mar 16 2010, 03:27 AM
Of course, Republicans are prettier than Democrats.
ORLY?

Posted Image

I particularly love the mismatched animal patterns. What a sense of style!

And that was, literally, the first picture of a Republican Congresswoman that I Googled.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
:thumb: True to form.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I am constant as the Northern star.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Constance - the hobgoblin of little minds. :lol:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Mar 16 2010, 04:05 AM
Constance - the hobgoblin of little minds. :lol:
Aww, now you've lumped yourself with the poorly educated crowd.

The quote is "FOOLISH consistency".

Un-foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of nothing.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Our government has become a vile, unsupportable tyranny so far removed from the Constitution that it allegedly operates under, and the people it allegedly serves, that I really don't see much future for us as a nation. We've sold oueselves down the rivers of an entitlement society, justication of international interference for the sake of economic or military advantage, and a quite possibly deliberately dumbed down electorate who can't see the tragedy unfolding and its shameless disregard for the Constitution in the midst of a battle for power where none of the combatants respect the people or the supreme law of the land. I would never have believed that I'd ever advise my children this way, but I've counseled them both to find home, family, and opportunity in some other country, beacause we've all but irreparably screwed up the opportunity handed to us by our forebears. This kind of disgusting behavior on the part of Congress is just one illustration of our squandered inheritance. It's sad and depressing.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
The Democrats are ruining their credibility for time to come, not that they had much left. But still. It's sickening and maddening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
A lawsuit:

http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia
Quote:
 
"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."


Signed....are you ready for it?
Quote:
 
Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter


If it weren’t for hypocrisy the Democrat leadership would have no principles at all.



A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Mar 16 2010, 09:56 AM
A lawsuit:

http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia
Quote:
 
"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."


Signed....are you ready for it?
Quote:
 
Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter


If it weren’t for hypocrisy the Democrat leadership would have no principles at all.



How was that lawsuit resolved? (I don't know, but I'm making a guess.)

If they challenged a particular way of doing business, and the courts refused to overturn that way of doing business, are then they prohibited from following the court's decision thereafter?

Or are the Democrats supposed to play by a stricter set of rules than the Republicans do?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Mar 16 2010, 09:59 AM
If they challenged a particular way of doing business, and the courts refused to overturn that way of doing business, are then they prohibited from following the court's decision thereafter?

Or are the Democrats supposed to play by a stricter set of rules than the Republicans do?
Context is everything (someone told me). The case in question was about raising the ceiling on the national debt: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Slaughter-went-to-court-against-GOPs-self-executing-rule-in-2005---87773712.html
Quote:
 
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.

Now, explain to me how passing a 2000 plus page bill is equivalent to a "minor text correction." The other elephant in the room is this trillion dollar bill which, of course (cough cough) will reduce the deficit is just a teensy bit different from the routine (and unacceptable - there I said it) raising of the national debt ceiling.

More here: http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia


A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Two opposing opinions:

Former Federal Judge Michael McConnel , of Stanford University, considers the constitutionality of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” — a proposal to allow the House to pass both the Senate health care bill and proposed reconciliation amendments in a single vote.

Quote:
 
To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

Yale’s Jack Balkin is not so sure. He thinks the “Slaughter Solution” — what he calls “deem-and-pass” — could be done constitutionally, but if the House complies with the applicable constitutional requirements, it might not provide House Democrats with the political cover they seek. He writes, in relevant part:

Quote:
 
Despite Judge McConnell’s concerns, which are textually well founded, there is a way that “deem and pass” could be done constitutionally. There have to be two separate bills signed by the President: the first one is the original Senate bill, and the second one is the reconciliation bill. The House must pass the Senate bill and it must also pass the reconciliation bill. The House may do this on a single vote if the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill says that by passing the reconciliation bill the House agrees to pass the same text of the same bill that the Senate has passed. That is to say, the language of the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill must make the House take political responsibility for passing the same language as the Senate bill. The House must say that the House has consented to accept the text of the Senate bill as its own political act. At that point the President can sign the two bills, and it does not matter that the House has passed both through a special rule. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House can determine its own rules for passing legislation. There are plenty of precedents for passing legislation by reference through a special rule. . . .

The structural constitutional reason for this requirement is that members of the House must not able to avoid political accountability for passing the same bill as the Senate. The point of bicameralism and presentment is that all three actors (House, Senate and President) must agree to the legislation, warts and all, so that all three can be held politically accountable for it. They cannot point fingers at the other actors and deny responsibility for the policy choices made. The House cannot say, “oh we didn’t pass X; that was the Senate’s decision.” If the House doesn’t accept the same language as its own, even if that language is then immediately changed in an accompanying bill, there is no law. . . .

Deem and pass may make some members of the House feel better by providing a sort of fig leaf, but to be constitutional the process cannot rid them of political responsibility for passing the Senate bill. If it did, they would not have created a valid law.

A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Mar 16 2010, 10:15 AM
QuirtEvans
Mar 16 2010, 09:59 AM
If they challenged a particular way of doing business, and the courts refused to overturn that way of doing business, are then they prohibited from following the court's decision thereafter?

Or are the Democrats supposed to play by a stricter set of rules than the Republicans do?
Context is everything (someone told me). The case in question was about raising the ceiling on the national debt: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Slaughter-went-to-court-against-GOPs-self-executing-rule-in-2005---87773712.html
Quote:
 
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.

Now, explain to me how passing a 2000 plus page bill is equivalent to a "minor text correction." The other elephant in the room is this trillion dollar bill which, of course (cough cough) will reduce the deficit is just a teensy bit different from the routine (and unacceptable - there I said it) raising of the national debt ceiling.

More here: http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia


Now you're just negotiating your price.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Mar 16 2010, 10:16 AM
Two opposing opinions:

Former Federal Judge Michael McConnel , of Stanford University, considers the constitutionality of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” — a proposal to allow the House to pass both the Senate health care bill and proposed reconciliation amendments in a single vote.

Quote:
 
To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

Yale’s Jack Balkin is not so sure. He thinks the “Slaughter Solution” — what he calls “deem-and-pass” — could be done constitutionally, but if the House complies with the applicable constitutional requirements, it might not provide House Democrats with the political cover they seek. He writes, in relevant part:

Quote:
 
Despite Judge McConnell’s concerns, which are textually well founded, there is a way that “deem and pass” could be done constitutionally. There have to be two separate bills signed by the President: the first one is the original Senate bill, and the second one is the reconciliation bill. The House must pass the Senate bill and it must also pass the reconciliation bill. The House may do this on a single vote if the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill says that by passing the reconciliation bill the House agrees to pass the same text of the same bill that the Senate has passed. That is to say, the language of the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill must make the House take political responsibility for passing the same language as the Senate bill. The House must say that the House has consented to accept the text of the Senate bill as its own political act. At that point the President can sign the two bills, and it does not matter that the House has passed both through a special rule. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House can determine its own rules for passing legislation. There are plenty of precedents for passing legislation by reference through a special rule. . . .

The structural constitutional reason for this requirement is that members of the House must not able to avoid political accountability for passing the same bill as the Senate. The point of bicameralism and presentment is that all three actors (House, Senate and President) must agree to the legislation, warts and all, so that all three can be held politically accountable for it. They cannot point fingers at the other actors and deny responsibility for the policy choices made. The House cannot say, “oh we didn’t pass X; that was the Senate’s decision.” If the House doesn’t accept the same language as its own, even if that language is then immediately changed in an accompanying bill, there is no law. . . .

Deem and pass may make some members of the House feel better by providing a sort of fig leaf, but to be constitutional the process cannot rid them of political responsibility for passing the Senate bill. If it did, they would not have created a valid law.

And it shouldn't let them do that. If it passes, it's their bill, for better or worse.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Mar 16 2010, 07:23 AM
I would never have believed that I'd ever advise my children this way, but I've counseled them both to find home, family, and opportunity in some other country....
I have a 1400 sq. ft. two bedroom basement suite to let. Washer/dryer, range and fridge, parking, utilities and cable incl.. Furniture negotiable. Quiet neighbourhood. Close to city centre, direct bus service to university and shopping. Month to month cash only.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Mar 16 2010, 10:22 AM
Now you're just negotiating your price.
Sorta like the use of the filibuster, eh?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
QuirtEvans
Mar 16 2010, 10:23 AM
]And it shouldn't let them do that. If it passes, it's their bill, for better or worse.
Yes indeed. This is not nearly a big enough fig leaf to cover them in the election. To think otherwise is delusional.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I think a lot of House Democrats are wising up to that. This maneuver by Pelosi is brazen but depends on the gullability of an awful lot of people including House Democrats.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I don't anticipate hearing a lot of them stand up to say, 'I am Spartacus', no. Pelosi's admonitions rather remind me of the last days of the Third Reich. Sacrifice youself for the Fatherland.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, she is kind of an unbalanced despot.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Kincaid
Mar 16 2010, 11:11 AM
Well, she is kind of an unbalanced despot.
Der Furor.

Posted Image

(That's really an unflattering pic - she looks like a Sith lord throwing Jedis around)
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartacus
Member Avatar
Newbie
Mikhailoh
Mar 16 2010, 11:06 AM
'I am Spartaus'
:wave:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply