In a desperate endeavor to pass the unpopular health care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposes using the “self-executing rule,” or Slaughter Solution despite her objection to use of a similar rule in 2005. by Raven Clabough
Speaker Pelosi Calls for Self-Executing Rule
Raven Clabough | John Birch Society
17 March 2010
President Obama’s campaign promised openness and transparency, yet the most recent proposal to pass health care reform illustrates anything but that. In a desperate endeavor to pass the unpopular health care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposes using the “self-executing rule,” despite her objection to use of a similar rule in 2005.
The Washington Post explains that the self-executing rule “allows for a ‘two for one’ procedure: When the House adopts such a rule, it simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, a ‘self-executed provision’, which is specified in the rule itself.” What this means is that lawmakers have no opportunity to amend or vote separately on the provision that is self-executed. This rule has been around since the Great Depression in 1933, though it exists in various forms.
As it relates to the health care reform bill, Fox News explains that the “self-executing rule” works as follows: “The House could simultaneously approve the Senate version of the bill while voting on the package of changes. This would ‘deem’ the Senate bill passed, though not directly show members voting in favor of passage.” This rule has been dubbed the “Slaughter Solution” after House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York who devised the rule.
The use of this rule appeases any House Democrats who do not want to come out in support of the bill in fear of a backlash from their constituents.
By calling on the Slaughter Solution to pass the health care bill, Pelosi betrays her own hypocrisy. In 2005, the Republican majority in Congress needed to raise the U.S. debt limit in order to cover the costs of increased spending. The GOP used the self-executing rule to prevent the embarrassment of House Republicans and Democrats who voted in favor of increasing the debt. A clerical error, which was believed to alter provisions of the bill, prompted legal activists with the Ralph Nader-backed group Public Citizen to challenge the constitutionality of the rule, arguing that the act was invalid since “the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form.” In its ruling in the case, the court cited the 1892 Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark ruling that found, “the judiciary must treat the attestations of ‘the two houses, through their presiding officers’ as ‘conclusive evidence that a bill was passed by Congress.’” In other words, once both the House and the Senate sign the bill, it is deemed complete and unimpeachable. Here’s the kicker. Take a closer look at who joined Public Citizen in that suit: Nancy Pelosi herself.
Besides the apparent double standard held by Pelosi, there is a major difference between the routine debt limit increase measures in Congress and placing the American health care system under government control.
Unfortunately, this proposal is winning favor among Democrats who were concerned with going on record in support of the bill.
However, this seems to ignore the obvious question: If Democrats are afraid to publicly support of the bill, does that not say something about the bill? House Republican Leader John Boehner’s office addressed this in a statement. “Republicans believe that if the Democrats are willing to have the government take over our health care system, they should be willing to vote for it-without any gimmicks.”
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/610...executing-rule
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us