Not from me. I read it the same way you do.

What I don't understand is where Obama and Pelosi think they have the legal authority to do otherwise.

"But this 'deem' crap has been happening since the 30's so it can't hurt anything, right?"

That line of thinking makes me so mad.

Jon Kyle is already threatening legal action as is the Attorney General of Virginia in a letter to Nancy Pelosi. Do they really want to go down this road? Evidently so, Barry says that 'he's not concerned about rules and procedures'.

Come on November!

Landmark Legal Foundation has already posted a draft of their coming lawsuit.

http://landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx

It cites the same section of the constitution and names Obama, Holder, Geithner and Sibelius as defendants.

I hat to say it but signing this and trying to enforce it knowing beforehand that it was enacted unconstitutionally would be an impeachable offense.

I would settle for gelding Obama politically and voting him out in 2012.

' In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass." '

http://blog.american.com/?p=11467

Pssst... Grandfan, they're not the only ones.

I posted this in the other thread but it bares repeating:

Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called "deem and pass," "self-executing," or "Slaughter Rule" to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama's healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance.

"Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn't. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution."

Go for it Barry and let the impeachment proceedings commence.

It's a travesty, but not because of what you bolded, which applies to veto overrides.

AB - Show us one, just ONE of those examples you're hiding behind that had an end effect of changing the entire health care system.

Show us where this latest attempt is Constitutional.

It wasn't then and it isn't now.

When Republicans take Congress, they will "deem" Obama to be impeached and removed.

And, will "deem" HC to be repealed.

Jeff,

I can see how you could read that what I emphasized applies only to bills being reconsidered so perhaps I am indeed wrong in bolding and underlining what I did... but in the context of the first sentence, I think my emphasis is still important... crucial in fact...

The spin-meister (a/k/a/ Obummer) at work:

BAIER: Let me insert this. We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions. More than 18,000 people took time to e-mail us questions. These are regular people from all over the country. Lee Johnson, from Spring Valley, California: "If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?"

Sandy Moody in Chesterfield, Missouri: "If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?"

OBAMA: Bret, I get 40,000 letters or e-mails a day.

BAIER: I know.

OBAMA: I could read the exact same e-mail --

BAIER: These are people. It's not just Washington punditry.

OBAMA: I've got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven't we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don't have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can't get insurance?

So the issue that I'm concerned about is whether not we're fixing a broken system.

BAIER: OK, back to the original question.

OBAMA: The key is to make sure that we vote -- we have a vote on whether or not we're going to maintain the status quo, or whether we're going to reform the system.

Adrian can't show any legislation that is even remotely similar to what the House is proposing to do because it hasn't ever been done.

Does Adrian think for a minute that the GOP could have done such a sleazy act without the dems and the MSM freaking out? Their heads would have been exploding everywhere! He knows that is the truth. He refuses to consider that fact because he knows that if he does he will have to acknowledge that it is true and that he is full of BS.

The dems know they are lying. They know that the MSM will try to help them get away with it. Too bad for them that the polls are all showing that the harder they push for Obamacare the worse it polls and the more damage the dems will see in November.

adrian B ...

only 4 of those cases you cited were ever signed into law ... and in each case the language contained in the "rule" matched exactly the language signed into law ...

in this case the vote for the rule WILL NOT deem the Senate bill passed ... the vote for the rule will only make it live ... not until the recon bill is voted on and passed will the Senate bill be "deemed passed" ...
so what you have is 2 votes, one for the rule and one for the recon bill of amendments ... in NEITHER case is House members be voting on the exact language of the Senate bill ... notice the difference ?

Adrian

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Slaughter-went-to-court-against-GOPs-self-executing-rule-in-2005---87773712.html

Pelosi, Slaughter went to court against GOP in 2005 case that exposes Slaughter Solution flaw

Your dem talking points sorta left that out didnt they.

Also those times were used for STRICTLY BUDGETARY ITEMS and not enacting laws in other areas. Your healthcare reform goes WAY BEYOND BUDGETARY ITEMS.

Of course that wasnt in your talking points either.

BTW Adrian

When the republicans did it it was for admendements to BUDGETARY ITEMS. Again not the same as the dems.

And comment on the fact that Pelosi and slaughter went to court to try to stop it.

Tool

OBAMA: So that's not -- that's not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I'll give you some exceptions though.

Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions -- millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they're still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.

This is so much BULLSHIT it stinks.

first of all by all accounts it will not only remain in the bill but the scam has been extended to ALL states and that will explode costs.

Secondly, the original scam was LA lost money supposedly because of Katrina but.. there's a legal reason for it. Those funds are dolled out based on average wages in the State. Wages were lowered because of Katrina BUT would have been raised anyway, and in accordance with current law.

There was, and is no reason to include that scam as the reimbursement would have been raised regardless of the scam attempted.

Oh, Adrian! You forgot the money quote from the site you posted:

"I don't like self-executing rules by either party--I prefer the "regular order"--so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so--is there no shame anymore?"

adrian B ...

when the "deemed passed" bills of the GOP were challenged in the Supreme court they passed on ruling either way because the language of the rule was an exact match for the law signed ...
bill, rule, motion, whatever, in their mind if the language is the same you are voting for the same final law ...
that is clearly not happening in this case ...

BAIER: Deem and passed, Senate reconciliation and we don't know exactly what's in the fix bill. Do you still think --

OBAMA: No, we will -- by the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits.

But here's the thing, Bret, I mean, the reason that I think this conversation ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington process. And yes, I have said that is an ugly process. It was ugly when Republicans were in charge, it was ugly were in Democrats were in charge.

Way to go nimrod, it's ugly and damn it to hell we're gonna KEEP IT UGLY.

Put another way fuck you people.

Any freakin' questions?

Just one, a recap of my comments on the previous thread: would it not make more sense to focus on the recording of the vote tally than on whether or not a vote was held?

The tally is what the public sees, anyway, and the only candidate for such a tally in this case is the yea/nay vote on the "deeming" question, so that's what should have to be recorded.

Hammer that theme and I suspect you could scare off a few more Dems in the House.

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on......

Adrian Browne wrote:

. . . from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times . . .

What the GOP did was nothing like the Slaughter Strategy. The GOP used the self-executing rule to vote on Senate amendments to House bills which had already passed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html

Completely different than what Pelosi is trying to pull off.

Since when does the Constitution apply to Democrats?

It is facinating that a Harvard Law Professor who believes our forefathers did a lousy job by limiting the government too much in the constition, doesn't care about how laws are passed? I believe they would take the bill if the GOP wrote it and FIX it later (Chicago style)Look at the EPA and climahoax.

The problem is their own people
1.don't agree
2. don't trust them

Seriously, if 51 votes can be deemed to have been heard by the chair -what is to stop the next GOP chair from hearing 61 to overide Obama's veto of their removal of this marxist Trojan Horse?

OH!! That's from that "Constitution" thingy. Well like, SO WHAT??!! I mean, like, it's not like some like old paper is like going to like HELP people who like NEED it!!

With the indulgence of the commentariat:

Doctors tell you keeping fit requires a regular investment of time, work and willpower. They tell you that the difficulty of shedding pounds and building muscle tone is defined by your constitution. Well, we say to hell with your constitution! Who's the boss anyway?

That's right, you are. Want to shed fifty pounds before summer but don't want to spend hundreds on a whole year's worth of gym dues? Deem those pounds away with Slaughtercize®! Want to impress the ladies with your six-pack abs? Deem that spare tire away with Slaughtercize®!

Link

One of the arguments that some of the lefties have been using is that that last sentence is only meant for Veto overrides. But the words "In all such cases" should be interpreted to mean the entire set of cases listed above. The fact that the GOP already used this type of passage in the past really has made me angry as hell at them.