Deem and Pass OR Demon pass? UnConstitutional again!, page 1

Deem and pass.

I wanted to write this thread in regards to Former Judge Michael McConnell's breakdown in regards to the Health Care bill. He is a former 10th circuit court judge and now is a Law Professor at Stanford Law.

From wikipedia-Michael McConnell

He is widely regarded as one of the preeminent constitutional law scholars on the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

I cannot even get to any of the links on Google, it seems everyone and their neighbor is trying to get to the info. It is taking like five minutes or more to load any of the pages.

So, I will paraphrase from the interview on Fox News-

McConnell stated that the deem and pass has NEVER been used to pass a bill. It has been used to pass an amendment and later the bill was voted on. Now with the technique the Congress is attempting is downright UnConstitutional because the fact that the bill is being passed without a vote.

If I can get to this later, I will add the video. I cannot get to it, the link just does not load.

From this link-Critics Challenge Legitimacy of Plan to Avoid Direct Vote on Health Care

McConnell argued that the move would violate Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that a bill becomes law when it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" and the president signs it.

So there we have it. Your government does not follow the law. Shall we allow this to continue? What's next?

reply to post by endisnighe

---

McConnell stated that the deem and pass has NEVER been used to pass a bill. It has been used to pass an amendment and later the bill was voted on.

That is just a flat out lie.

The WHOLE idea of deem and pass is to say "We approve this bill with X,Y,Z changes to it". So yes...you are using it to ammend the bill that isn't voted on. THAT IS HOW THE SELF-EXECUTING RULE WORKS....even all the times the repulicans have used it. The bill NEVER goes back to be voted on...hence the name "deem" and "PASS".


So much mis-information and so much hypocrisy...and yes on both sides. Because we have dems pushing the deem and pass as legitimate when in the past they complained about it. But hey...what goes around comes around...right???


But this is just false information...everytime "deem and pass" is used the bill isn't directly voted on. Otherwise...why use it???

And of course this is from Fox News...but I'm sure you don't think it is biased at all.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

If this maneuver is illegal, then the courts will find as such (oh wait, they already have ruled that it does NOT violate constitutionality, see below). People need to stop acting like it is treasonous for congress to craft and pass legislation (and create procedural rules as allowed by the constitution).

We have a judicial system for a reason. Unless you are saying 'demons' have invaded people's heads, but then, well, what is left to say?

On the specific issue of 'deem and pass,' it is my understanding that congress has used it for 80 years. It's another non-issue, just like death panels, that has been brought up to obfuscate the issue by those who stand to benefit by keeping the status quo.

More recently, Grim notes that deeming resolutions were used by Republicans "36 times in 2005 and 2006," and by Democrats "49 times in 2007 and 2008." The second salvo from health care opponents arrived in the form of complaints that Louise Slaughter once opposed the use of her own "Slaughter Rule" on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. As Ezra Klein explains, that's true:

So today's furor is that Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter joined Public Citizen in a lawsuit arguing that a bill that George W. Bush signed was invalid because Deem and Pass is unconstitutional. But the court ruled against Public Citizen, Pelosi and Slaughter.

Deem and Pass, well, passed. And now Democrats are using it, too. Of course, the fact that Slaughter learned that deeming resolutions were entirely above board is probably what informed her decision to employ a deeming resolution!

click hear to actually learn about deem and pass

deem and pass is not without a vote

Best,
Skunknuts

P.S. I hope that in a couple years people remember all of their hyperventilation and can admit how silly their paranoia over reform truly was. However, if this bill (can we call it a law yet) needs to be changed, I will work to those ends just like I have worked to see its enacting.



[edit on 3/17/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

I understand your unwavering support of the healthcare reform bill, however you are making incorrect statements in order to make your point.

Please provide the SOURCE showing each instance when Deem and Pass was used to pass an entire, new bill and the cost of said bill.

I think you will be shocked to find that it has never been used, by either party, to pass a bill of this magnitude. Using the deem and pass rule for this type and size legislation is unprecedented.

Further, democrats are so scared of approving this bill -- that right there should tell you there are MAJOR problems with it -- that they are hiding behind a smaller number of indirect votes.

Frankly, this should be the red flag for anyone considering supporting this bill.

The party that is pushing this, is the same party hiding from it.

Why are Democrats considering this even though there will still be a roll-call vote?

There are a number of House Democrats -- either vulnerable in their reelection bids or who don't like the Senate bill -- who want to avoid a DIRECT vote on the health reform bill. They feel this indirect vote -- even though it includes the health-care bill -- gives them a measure of cover politically.

firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

So...democrats are admitting they "don't like the bill" but will allow it to pass so long as they don't have to "directly vote on it".

RED FLAG! RED FLAG!! RED FLAG!!!

reply to post by endisnighe

---

To bring up Hitler shows your desperation. I'm not arguing that because it was used before it is RIGHT, I'm saying it's a non-issue as it has already been shown as constitutional. Stop with the straw-men.

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by skunknuts

---

Thanks for coming back and supplying links to two opinion pieces from the HUFF POST. Maybe you should tell me what CONSTITUTIONAL training these opinion writers have.

Are they lawyers? Hmmmm?

Well, I give a source that is a venerated judge and law scholar and you bring me opinion pieces from the liberal leaning Huff Po. Thanks for that, really helpful.

Anyone want to show me when and what this legislative maneuver was ever used to ACTUALLY pass a bill.

Waiting with baited breath. Need some links for proof, otherwise you guys are just blowing smoke. Sorry, I only smoke tobacco, not hot air.

reply to post by skunknuts

---

How can all uses of Deem and Pass be considered equal in your eyes?

[Note: this is for making my point only and not based on actual figures]

That's like saying, well the Democrats submitted 100 expenses and the Republicans submitted 100 expenses so they are even. Fair is fair.

Unfortunately, the Republicans' expenses came to 2 trillion dollars and the Democrats only amassed 1 billion.

Are they still equal comparisons?

Deem and pass has never been used to pass a bill of this magnitude before. How can you be so willing to allow the use of this measure to pass a trillion dollar piece of legislation?

Where does the ceiling fall for you? What if it were 2 Trillion? Still OK?

The dollar amount of this legislation alone should be enough for people to say: Hey, wait a minute, the President said we were broke 6 months ago..... He wants to freeze spending.... He wants to focus on jobs.... He wants to improve our GDP..... He wants the unemployment rate to drop.... Medicare is broke.... Social Security is broke.... entitlement funds are dwindling at an alarming rate coast to coast....

Healthcare reform written as it is now will not help any of the above issues.

Healthcare reform is needed. Only 4% of people think it's not necessary at all.

However, I'm with the rest of the 60% of people that say:
This is not the answer!

reply to post by lpowell0627

---

I think you will be shocked to find that it has never been used, by either party, to pass a bill of this magnitude.

So it is ok to use to pass bills of a smaller magnitude? Is that spelled out somewhere...or is this just a nice excuse to use??? The magnitude doesn't matter...it has been used in the past to pass bills, from both party, so if it is constitutional for that...then it is constitutional for anything...regardless of the size. Unless you want to show me a size limit on a bill in the constitution????

So...democrats are admitting they "don't like the bill" but will allow it to pass so long as they don't have to "directly vote on it".

Which is exactly why they use "deem and pass"...to say "We deem this is passed with X,Y, and Z changes made to the bill". This isn't sinister...it isn't even ABNORMAL. The paranoia sometimes is just too much for me to handle.

reply to post by endisnighe

---

Really...Hitler already...so soon in the discussion???

Well, I will listen to a Constitutional Scholar in regards to this being Constitutional. NO MATTER what the source is.

Sorry, I do not fall for the "well it was done before" argument.

Ok...so I assume you are advocating for the repeal of ALL legislation that has ever used "deem and pass"...correct? And also for "deem and pass" to never be used again...even though it is agreed upon by all in congress that it is a valid and legal procedure.

Or are you going to be a hypocrit and just say this one particular instance is unconstitutional???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

Actually, I advocate removing EVERYTHING EVER that has been passed this way.

Also, I advocate removing ALL unConstitutional legislation, how does that work for you.

I could give you a list of my threads that I have advocated exactly THAT.

You and nuts should quit trying to take my words out of context. Both of you are pretty good at lying by not showing my whole quote.

Nice technique there, you two don't happen to be political majors are you?

Please, address the OP with links to Facts and proof of your assertions. Still waiting for some type of Lawyer or Judge saying this is Constitutional.

Now we have Obama saying that it does not matter about the procedure, HEAR THAT? He does not even care if it is Constitutional!

So keep up the obfuscations while the government breaks the law.

reply to post by endisnighe

---

Here...you want a an expert...here is a law professor from Yale.

Link To Source


It also give an court case which says:

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that if both the House speaker and the Senate president attest that identical bills have passed both houses of Congress, the courts must accept that the constitutional requirement has been satisfied.

So good luck on this being unconstitutional when there is precedence in the courts already that say it is Constitutional.




And here is the original blog post where he directly refutes what your source, Michael McConnell, says.
Link To Blog


So two law professionals...two different opinions...guess we just let the courts decide...and with the existing precedence in the courts favoring self-executing rules...it's pretty much already decided.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

Alright, I HAVE TO POST YOUR RESPONSE. Thanks. Did you read it?

Conservative media figures have recently claimed that the use of a legislative procedure called a "self-executing rule" to pass health care reform in the House is unconstitutional. However, Yale law professor Jack Balkin has explained that the procedure in question would pass constitutional muster; additionally, federal appeals courts have recently held that the constitutional requirement that both houses pass a bill has been met when the House speaker and Senate president attest the bill has passed.

Looking at the bold component, what do we need to elect anyone except the HS or SP now?

Sounds like the appeals courts are doing things unConstitutionally also.

Explain to me that last sentence from your link.

Also from Jack Balkin's own site here-Balkinization

Maybe you should go to the source instead of some hit piece!

Speaker Pelosi is trying to give House members a way of saying they did not vote for the Senate bill, but my point is that however much she and they may be trying to do this rhetorically, she and they can't really do this politically and constitutionally. They have to take responsibility for what they are doing and the language of the bill has to say that they are taking responsibility. This is the point of Article I, section 7.

Also from his site-

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.

And this-

Speaker Pelosi is trying to give House members a way of saying they did not vote for the Senate bill, but my point is that however much she and they may be trying to do this rhetorically, she and they can't really do this politically and constitutionally. They have to take responsibility for what they are doing and the language of the bill has to say that they are taking responsibility. This is the point of Article I, section 7.

And this-

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. Nevertheless, if both the House and Senate pass a reconciliation bill, then both House and Senate also can take political responsibility for getting rid of undesirable features of the original Senate bill. They can then both take credit for fixing the flaws in the former bill. Politicians taking responsibility for acts of legislation is the way the constitutional process is supposed to work.

As I have said to many people before GO TO THE SOURCE!

[edit on 3/17/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe

---

Sounds like the appeals courts are doing things unConstitutionally also

You asked for a lawyer or court decision...I gave it to you. Sorry you don't like the decision...take it up with the courts...I didn't make the decision.

Maybe you should go to the source instead of some hit piece!

LOL...I did...I read the whole thing...and I don't really disagree with anything he says. I"ll respond to your quotes though.

Speaker Pelosi is trying to give House members a way of saying they did not vote for the Senate bill, but my point is that however much she and they may be trying to do this rhetorically, she and they can't really do this politically and constitutionally. They have to take responsibility for what they are doing and the language of the bill has to say that they are taking responsibility. This is the point of Article I, section 7.

I agree...they have to be responsible for what they vote for...and they have to do it constitutionally. And if they do it in the way he says...it will be constitutional. I have no disagreement here. What do you think this proves???

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.

Again...I agree. They may TRY to get out of accountability for the bill...but if someone knows the procedures and the way the process works...they can't dupe that person. They may be able to dupe some people...but in the end they are still accountable.

What...is it now illegal for a congressman to say even though he voted for it THEN he does not support it NOW???? Iraq war anyone???

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. Nevertheless, if both the House and Senate pass a reconciliation bill, then both House and Senate also can take political responsibility for getting rid of undesirable features of the original Senate bill. They can then both take credit for fixing the flaws in the former bill. Politicians taking responsibility for acts of legislation is the way the constitutional process is supposed to work.

Again..I agree. I don't know why you seem to think this proves the unconstituionality of this bill? All he is saying in each of these quotes over and over is that even if they use this rule, and if they use it correctly and constituionally...anyone who votes for the rule cannot say they didn't vote for the bill. They can't claim no responsibility. Sure...some will try...but that doesn't make the legislation unconstitutional...it just makes that one politician a liar.


I do noticed that you failed to address any of the points he made about it actually being Constitutional for them to use this procedure...instead you tried to attack me because you thought I didn't read it. And what is this about you lecturing me about going to the source??? I provided a LINK to the original source....so what's your deal???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

Alright, the instant ANY politician says that they did not vote for the Health Care I want you to call for their IMMEDIATE expulsion from Congress.

You agreed that if they use deem and pass they must take responsibility for it, CORRECT? Otherwise it would be un Constititutional.

So they would be breaking their oath of office.

I wonder how many people on the Dem side of the Dem/Repub paradigm will actually stand behind the Constitution and politicians oaths of office.

Sorry, this bill be the line sir. It mandates purchases of a product by me. Sorry, un Constitutional, no matter what type of bull ANYONE can come up with.

You know, they have a process to pass Constitutional Law, you know, the Amendment process. But who cares about law when in regards to the gov. They can do anything they want, just as always.

Be a part of the Dem/Repub paradigm and help destroy the country. Turn our country into a Democracy instead of what it is by law, a Constitutional Republic.

Thanks for your comments.

reply to post by endisnighe

---

Alright, the instant ANY politician says that they did not vote for the Health Care I want you to call for their IMMEDIATE expulsion from Congress.

If my representative or senators lie about voting for this...I wouldn't vote for them again.

There is no constitutional basis to immediatly expel someone from congress for lying...we would have an empty congress if that was the case.

You agreed that if they use deem and pass they must take responsibility for it, CORRECT? Otherwise it would be un Constititutional.

So they would be breaking their oath of office.

Whether the admit responsibility or not...if they vote for the rule...they are responsible for the legislation that passes.

That is not what they mean by they say "otherwise it would be unconstitutional"...it doesn't mean that if one person claims they didn't vote for it then the legislation is automatically unconstitutional. It means that they are responsible for what ever passes...and they can't have the house vote for X,Y, and Z and the Senate vote for A,B, and C...and have all X, Y, Z, A, B, and C pass and then only claim responsibility for either XYZ or ABC. If they do that...then it would be unconstitutional...but that isn't what they are doing.

Here is what they are doing....the Senate has passed A, B, and C. The house is saying we deem this passed as long as C is removed and X and Y are approved. Then the reconciliation bill will be written to ONLY included A,B,X, and Y...if the Senate passes that reconciliation bill...then the house deems it passed as well. HOWEVER...if the reconciliation bill passes A,B,C,X, and Y....then it would be unconstitutional for it to pass without the house voting on it again.

So right now...at this point...nothing is unconstitutional because there is no final self-executing rule written and no reconciliation bill written. The only time it can be conclusively determined if this is constitutional is AFTER the rule is passed and the reconciliation bill is written.

If you don't agree with the above...then I don't think you understand how the process works.

So for right now ANYONE saying this self-executing rule is unconstitutional has NO BASIS FOR THAT CLAIM....ZERO.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

So more obfuscations here again.

Forget it, I guess if the government passed a bill that reinstituted slavery, I guess all you would do is vote em out next time.

What a joke, do not bother commenting again. You are pretty good at sliding right past anything put to you. This debate is a slick as the Obama spiel he is going over now.

reply to post by endisnighe

---

So more obfuscations here again.

Exactly what obfuscations???

What have I tried to make confusing, conceal or make ambigous???

I have given you as many details as I can. It is a complicated subject...if you are confused by the details...that is not me being obfuscatory...that is you not understanding.


Exactly which question or argument do you think I slide right past???

Tell me and I'll try to simplify it for you.

Startling revelations from a Swiss banking insider
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags

Rothschild Speaks: Want\'s One World Currency
  Posted 7 days ago with 21 member flags

A Long Time In The Making and Here\'s The Proof - Thine Eyes and Ears Do not Deceive Thee!!!!
  Posted 12 days ago with 19 member flags

Let\'s Take Action - Awaken The Sheeple
  Posted 19 days ago with 15 member flags

ACTA and You - Important Video - It has Begun
  Posted 11 days ago with 15 member flags

Know Thine Enemy! Iran Warns of Coming Great Event.
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags

MSM Try To Debunk Illuminati Denver Airport Underground Facility
  Posted 16 days ago with 10 member flags

Behind the Swoosh: Your clothes come from this type of sweatshop hell
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: