Do you remember House Rep. Louis Slaughter (D-NY)? Sure you do, she is the nincompoop who gave that silly sob story at the Health Care Dog and Pony Show about some woman wearing her dead sister’s teeth. Well, it turns out that Louise Slaughter isn’t just your run of the mill congressional nincompoop, she happens to be the Democratic chair of the House Rules Committee and as such she gets to come up with new rules for the House. Ms. Slaugher is devising a scheme where the Senate Bill would be passed in the House without actually voting on it. I kid you not!
From GOP Leaders Blog: The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama’s massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.
The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House. [MORE]
Is this the most fascist thing you have ever heard? If the Democrats ever use this method, I for one will work myself to the bone to get my state government to nullify any law passed in this manner. If the Federal government is going to start making up new rules on the fly to get what they want, despite our objections, then they have lost all legitimacy as far as I am concerned.
Confederate Yankee clearly spells out the dangers of government taking such actions:
They are attempting to declare victory without a vote, governing by fiat.
Please pay attention, my fellow Americans.
Governments that begin trying to rewrite rules that have worked for hundreds of years in order to seize a temporary advantage quickly become drunk on that power if they are allowed it, and the result is always unpleasant.
Slaughter's subversive House rules are just one avenue that leftists are pursuing in a frenetic quest to seize as much power for themselves as possible before many of their number are thrown out of office in November. The problem, of course, is that if they find that they can simply rewrite the rules to suit them, then even the sting of electoral defeat may no longer be a threat to their ambitions.
Watch them closely.
This is probably one of the clearest signs that the Democrats do not have the votes in the House nor or likely to get them. You would imagine if reconciliation leaves the public with a bad taste, Slaughter’s solution will make them retch. Yet, here is Louise Slaughter making a complete mockery of democracy by changing the rules midstream just to pass a bill none wants and they don’t have the votes for.
Come November, vote these people out, they are a threat to our freedom.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: GOP Leader Blog
Via: Confederate Yankee
Posts
15 comments:
Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthorative,void,and of no force.-Thomas Jefferson. Although this was just a sentence in a letter and not an actual law precedent, I believe the Constitution contains similar sentiments (not that these scum know what the Constitution is).They've gotten away with too much in the past few decades,it's got to stop!
I *SO* hope the democrats do this! Not only won't a single democrat win reelection in November (OK, maybe in Pelosi's district, but that's the only one) but I would expect a number of successful recall petitions for Democrats who are not even up for reelection!!
Anonymous @ 12:05 AM:
The spirit of that sentence is in the structure set forth in the Constitution. It is high time Americans are reminded that we are not sheep that have to go along with whatever madness Washington has in store for us.
Anonymous @12:60AM:
I actually am hoping not. I say this because I do not have great confidence in the Republican Party to undo such a rule.
It became obvious with their attempted bill of attainder last year to tax at 100% (after the fact) bonuses execs at bailout companies got, this congress has NO intention of honoring the oath they took to uphold the Constitution.
Yet today we see further proof they think that great document has no better purpose than a Sears-Roebuck catalog in the privy.
"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."
AND
"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."
How much more clearly do they need it spelled out? Any attempt to do this is automatic justification as per the Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It is our RIGHT, our DUTY, to alter and/or abolish the Federal Government when it has become destructive. They have proven time and again that the annihilation of this nation's power structure, i.e., power flowing FROM the People TO the representatives in government, is not just a matter of collateral damage but intentionally being pursued.
Now that I have been deemed an insurrectionist... it's been a pleasure knowing ya, Cliff. Then again, if not for a few traitors to the Crown a couple hundred years ago...
"I do not have great confidence in the Republican Party to undo such a rule." (Cllifton)
I agree AND the temptation for the GOP to use these Democratic-inspired corruptions to press their own agenda would be HUGE.
Already, this expanding the use of Reconciliation will almost certainly be used to the GOP as soon as they get the chance....and even though I probably will support that agenda, I don't like the overreach and this deliberate abuse of Congressional authority.
But there will almostcertainly be so much to UNDO the temptation to short-cut the process will be very strong.
""I do not have great confidence in the Republican Party to undo such a rule." (Cllifton)
I agree AND the temptation for the GOP to use these Democratic-inspired corruptions to press their own agenda would be HUGE." (JMK)
Even Better! If both the DemoCons and the RepubliCrooks expose themselves for what they are in this fashion, we may finally get that viable third party option in 2012 that so many have wished for. True, the cost would be huge in the meantime, but we're probably screwed anyway for about the next 10 years based on what's been done over the past 14 months.
Past 14 months? How about the past 150 YEARS? This didn't start with Obama, nor did it start with Bush. The authority of We The People and if States was undermined the day Lincoln instigated a war of aggression against a sovereign nation and deposed its government, quite illegally. State and PERSONAL sovereignty has been under attack since because anyone choosing to stand up against it is deemed an insurrectionist (although, now I imagine they would be labeled a terrorist), reinforced by passage of the 16th and 17th amendments.
Angie Lee:
"It is our RIGHT, our DUTY, to alter and/or abolish the Federal Government when it has become destructive."
This is exactly why they stop teaching the Constitution in schools. They want us to forget that we run the show around here.
JMK:
The problem with making new rules like these is that the party in power forgets that they won't be there forever and then the new guys get to use it. If the GOP uses it and then keeps it on the books, it will only be there again for the left to use again.
Only principle people will know that it has to go, no matter how beneficial it may appear.
Anonymous @ 11:38 PM:
I am all for a third party but AFTER 2012. Getting rid of this Congress and this Administration is top priority. A third party before the presidential elections would be too risky. Just think of how Perrot helped Clinton.
Angie Lee:
We have been ceding our rights and liberties for quite some time. The only difference then and now is that back then people actually understood what they were losing. Today, so long as people think they can say they have a right, they think they are free.
Angie Lee:
The Confederacy was not a sovereign nation, as any government founded upon the "right" to enslave another human being is inherently invalid. (That includes Marxist governments, which are founded upon the government's right to enslave the entire population). I am all for states rights, and had the Confederacy, as its first act, abolished slavery, it would have had moral legitimacy. As it was, they had none. I can already hear the arguments that it wasn't "about" slavery, that it existed for a time in parts of the North, etc. but that *was* the issue upon which they severed their relationship with the U.S., and it is a sufficiently abominable practice that it simply invalidates any claim of moral high-ground or legitimacy from those who endorsed and defended it.
Anon: Not defending their practices, but trying to make the point that State and personal sovereignty have been under attack for more than a century, the frequency and intensity accelerating with each new congress.
I blogged about this a short while back, but I believe that eventually technology would have led to the end of slavery regardless of the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression. The economy of the south was far less liquid than that of the north and ultimately would have been forced to abandon it in favor of technology or face bankruptcy. Moral legitimacy aside, having filed articles of secession, they had legally proclaimed independence. If morality were the measuring stick by which we determined the legitimacy of a governing body, we would have global anarchy as there is not a government in existence today that is not morally bankrupt.
And you TOTALLY gave me something to chew on, which I hadn't thought about in that light before (but you're 100% correct), that Marxist governments enslave the entire population. Thanks!
Angie:
I didn't intend to imply that you were defending their practices, just that the Confederacy is maybe a bad example to use. I agree about the moral bankruptcy of governments, it's probably an inherent characteristic, but it's a matter of degree, and slavery beats out a lot of other stuff. I kind of blame the Confederacy for screwing up states rights as much as anyone - by severing over such a reprehensible issue, they kind of ruined it for anyone who might have wanted to secede over something more reasonable, say maybe a century and a half later. Besides, there's plenty of other examples to use, I think states rights has been under attack since about 5 minutes after the constitution was ratified.
And I'm glad to see it's not just my imagination - to me the parallels between true Marxism and "traditional" slavery, with the government acting as the slave owner, are amazing, they are virtually identical. It all goes back to people who think that they have the "right" to determination over those they view as less than themselves, an arrogance I see reflected in our own government.
Post a Comment