The most ethical congress ever? The left should be embarrassed to show their faces in public.
The Washington Examiner Wrote:Link
Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?
Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily:
"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."
.: Read the rest of this article :.
I cannot describe how this particular issue distresses me. Not since Watergate has there been so much hubris brought to bear against the constitution of the United States of America.
The Washington Examiner Wrote:Link
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
The constitution clearly states the following.
The US Constitution Wrote:U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But 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...
We now stand on the precipice of a constitutional crisis that makes Watergate look like a a playground brawl in comparison.
I fear for the state of the union. Hope and change has truly brought us to the brink. I can only hope that sanity breaks out in Washington DC before this misguided foolishness is allowed to be followed through upon.
In light of the fact that we see a complete dismissal of the constitution in this case, there should be consequences for those supporting the Slaughter legislation.
The oath of office that our Congresspeople take is listed below.
Congressional Oath of Office Wrote:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The supporters of the Slaughter legislation should be run out of office, unconditionally.
Isn't what normally happens is that a bill is passed by Congress then it goes on to the Senate. If the Senate passes it then it goes to the President. But if the Senate passes the bill with changes then the House and Senate must then write a bill out together that they can both pass. But what they are doing is taking the Senate bill and sending it to the House to be passed which is usually the reverse of how it goes but according to the Constitution is not illegal. Is that correct or am I wrong?