The Slaughter Rule: “Screw You” Politics

NOTE: This post has been amended to fix some mistakes.  Changes are highlighted in blue.

What can I say?  What words can I possibly use to describe the sheer cowardice, audacity and arrogance being displayed in Washington right now?  The liberal left, in the most blatant display of screw you politics I’ve ever seen, is actually going to OPENLY DEFY THE CONSTITUTION in order to pass Obamacare!  They’re calling this procedure the slaughter rule and it has never been used in this manner before! Nanci Pelosi is making up a rule in order to get this monstrosity to the president’s desk.  Instead of holding a vote on the Senate bill, Pelosi is going to (I’m not kidding) DEEM IT PASSED AND SEND IT ON TO OBAMA!  She’s just going to pass it herself by saying it WOULD pass IF THEY ACTUALLY VOTED ON IT! This way, all those idiot liberals in the house who don’t want to get their hands dirty won’t have to actually have a record of their support for this bill.  They think that will somehow help them get re-elected next year.  YEA RIGHT!

America, if I seem a bit harsher than I normally do in this post it’s only because this is the maddest I’ve ever been.  My hands are literally shaking from anger and it’s making it very hard to type.  The very idea of this should make your blood boil!  We talk a lot on here about whether or not something going on in Washington or anywhere else is constitutional or not.  Well, this one couldn’t be any more black-and-white.  Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives AND the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

To become law the same EXACT bill must be VOTED ON by BOTH HOUSES!  Never before in American politics has our constitution, the very foundation of all that our nation is, was and shall be, been so blatantly disregarded!

I’m expecting this to happen, but I’m also expecting the fallout from it to be of atomic proportions.  Remember THIS little fiasco from back in January during the State of the Union Address?

I said in my post about the speech that such slap in the face to the Supreme Court would turn into a turf war between the executive and judicial branches.  Well, if the court wants revenge, there would be no better time to get it then here.  I’d love to see, as soon as possible, a 7-0 ruling about the unconstitutionality of the procedure.  Justice Alito, this is your chance!  Shoot this mess down in a blaze of judicial glory!

That’s where this process might be stopped, but the aftershock will be felt from the American people.  You think the 9/12 March on DC was big?  Oh, wait till you see what will happen if they go through with this slaughter rule nonsense.  The next storming of the Capital may result in Pelosi and Reid being drug out by their hair.  The blatantly socialistic agendas of this administration and the current congress have already lit a fire under the people of America hotter than the sun itself.  Passage of Obamacare in such a blatantly ILLEGAL manner is only going to make all that rage explode into more action.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Slaughter Rule: “Screw You” Politics”


  1. 1 xgravity23 March 19, 2010 at 5:32 am

    This “self-executing rule” or “hereby” rule is NOT unconstitutional and has been done before. In fact, it was first used during the Great Depression (src: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10076/1043356-84.stm), a period in history–not unlike this one–when “imaginative” measures were needed to solve SERIOUS problems. I’m not saying I agree with Pelosi’s suggestion that she might consider using the self-executing rule, I’m just saying you should check your statements and provide support for them in order to seem credible. 🙂

    Check out this report: http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf (written by Walter J. Oleszek, a “senior specialist in American national government at the Congressional Research Service” src: http://www.american.edu/spa/faculty/oleszek.cfm).

    On another note, this sentence (“I’d love to see, the very afternoon Pelosi “deems” the bill passed, an instantaneous 7-0 ruling about the unconstitutionality of the procedure. Justice Alito, this is your chance!”) does not display knowledge of how the judicial branch/SC works… The SC can’t just convene and deem (ooh, buzzword!) an act of Congress/Speaker of the House/whoever it wants unconstitutional. Also not great for credibility. 😛

    • 2 freedomwatchnews March 19, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      You’re right on a couple of things. I did rush a bit of this post. I did a quick search for “slaughter rule” and it pulled up nothing from the past so I didn’t think this has been done before. However, I didn’t make up the Constitution which clearly outlines that the same bill must be passed by both houses in order to become law. If this has been done before then it was unconstitutional then as well. The “hereby” rule, therefore, is as unconstitutional now as it was in the Great Depression. It’s funny how our government always uses bad situations as an excuse to bend the rules and it’s always something socialistic like a stimulus package, the new deal or a complete overhaul of the healthcare system being passed. Like Rahm Emanuel says, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

      As for the judicial thing, I do know how the system works, that’s why I was making a wish in that statement. “I’d love to see,” does not constitute a possibility. I’d love to see all Stephenie Myer novels pulled off the shelves for being awful but I know that’s impossible. I’d love to see someone find the cure for cancer this afternoon but that’s impossible too. However, the supreme court CAN rule that this method of passing legislation is unconstitutional. I know it can’t happen as fast as I said but, “I’d love to see” it. It’s my opinion that the justices who were outraged by being called out in the State of the Union address might be more willing to take up this case than they normally would be. The best chance of shooting this down should it actually happen this Sunday is in the Supreme Court.

      If you look at all the evidence, it’s clear that Obama and Pelosi aren’t doing this for the people because they know the people don’t want it. If the majority of Americans weren’t so completely opposed to this overhaul then it would have passed already. Obama says it’s because of Republican stall tactics but Republicans wouldn’t be fighting it this hard without a strong backing from their constituents. Look at the Tea Party movement and how fast it exploded all over the country! I’m not saying all Americans want this bill dead but I’ll say with surety that the majority of them do and that majority is a strong one. The harder America opposes the harder Obama and Pelosi push and even resort to underhanded tactics like reconciliation (a method that they themselves bashed when Bush wanted to use it) and now this which clearly goes against the way our system was set up. So who are they really doing this for then?

    • 3 freedomwatchnews March 19, 2010 at 7:33 pm

      Linden, I’ve been doing further research on this subject and it seems I’m actually not wrong about the slaughter rule. See, deem and pass has indeed existed for years but never to pass legislation as a whole and certainly not something as sweeping as this bill is. Deem and pass is used to pass a joint resolution along with a bill. If the bill and the joint resolution are presented at the same time and the bill passes then the joint resolution is deemed to have passed along with it. Redstate.com does a really good job of explaining it. Two of the links you posted were broken. The one from house.gov worked but it didn’t argue in favor of what the Democrats are doing. It cited examples of the RIGHT way this is supposed to be used by deeming that certain measured be considered passed as long as the base bill passes. In all of these situations, the core bill must still pass according to Constitutional guidelines (a majority vote in both houses). What the Democrats are doing here is using this method to pass an entire bill without even voting on it. I really think this will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

  2. 4 xgravity23 March 23, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Okay, excellent point about it being done in the past does not mean it’s constitutional. I would posit, though, that just because things are unconstitutional doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be (best examples: women voting and other civil rights issues, presidential term limits, the poll tax). That is NOT to say that this should be constitutional, just that its unconstitutionality doesn’t automatically make it the worst thing EVAR.

    And thank you for doing further research and further comments diplomatically. That is my biggest pet peeve with any ranter (rep or dem), and much political “debate” has become unbearable to me because it is usually rude, unable to respect the other side’s POV, or short-sighted (both for the future and the past). Rants don’t convince anyone; they just further solidify party lines and partisan thinking. That is NOT what America needs. We need honest, respectful discussion and debate.

    I guess the whole point of my comment is, rather than debate this issue with you (DEFINITELY not my point), to suggest that if you are trying to convince the other side or people on the fence, you might not be going about it the right way. If your goal is something else, then, well, I’ll be quiet. 🙂

    (BTW: So weird that those links don’t work. The Post-Gazette one was fine for me on that day, and the last one is just taking the parenthesis at the end and that’s screwing up the link. If you copy and past it without the parenthesis, it does work.)

    • 5 freedomwatchnews March 24, 2010 at 1:09 am

      I could write an entire post on civil rights issues and the Constitution (someday I might) but all I’m going to say here is that I see no way that those things went against the Constitution in the first place. I don’t remember a “women shall not vote” or “African-Americans shall sit at the back of the bus” line in there. I don’t see how those issues went against the Constitution in the first place and if you’ve got an argument to prove me wrong I really want to hear it (that’s not meant to sound smart-ass. I really do want to hear how the Constitution could be seen as banning such things).

      The diplomatic thing is something I always try to strive for. I’m always willing to bow when defeated. If I make a claim and someone can show proof that I’m wrong I will always take it back and correct it. We are all human beings still learning as we go along and I see no defeat in becoming smarter. Normally, I am trying ton convince the other side and the fence sitters but this post was really just meant as an informative rant. I was angry and wanted to let my readers know what was going on. My current-events posts (like this one) are made on the fly. My lesson posts involve a lot of research and planning.

      As a final note, the Constitution was made to be amended but I don’t think it should ever be changed. Never before has a nation been founded on a document that secures liberty for the individual. Other nations have their citizens beholden to a king or some other leader. In America we are beholden unto ourselves and ourselves alone. You can’t find that in such a pure form anywhere else in the world and those who have something anywhere close often owe it to us. Issues like political process and individual liberty should NEVER be put up for debate or be questioned. When we let even a tiny crack form in our foundation, those who seek to destroy it (like Barack Obama) will stop at nothing to split it in two.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




Twitter

March 2010
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Categories

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: