Shenanigans continue: House Dems try ‘rule change’ to ram through Obamacare – the Constitution stands in their way…
Every day they write RE-write the book…
AceHQ has complete coverage of Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) attempt to change Teh Roolz so that the House Dems can get around actually passing, you know, the bill into, you know, a law BEFORE they do their fixes etc etc etc…
when in doubt losing, change teh roolz. Hell that’s how Obama ‘won’ the nomination….
(…) So what they’re trying to do is pass a bill which includes 1) changes to the Senate bill and 2) some kind of clause stating that “if these changes pass, the bill we’re trying to change also passes.” And what they’re claiming then is that the Senate bill would be self-executing; it would vote for itself, or something. It would be “constructively passed” if the changes are passed.
And so they are doing this to accomplish two fundamentally irreconcilable goals:
1) Pass the Senate bill without changes so that the Senate can use reconciliation.
2) Pass the Senate bill with changes so that the Senate bill can’t pass without those changes.
But if a bill is changed, it gets voted on again by the Senate. You cannot change this by “rule” — this is a Constitution-level thing. Obviously, all legislation must be voted for by House and Senate; the Constitution says so. You cannot claim that a bill “automatically passes” by voting on some other matter. You cannot claim that you’re passing a changed bill for one purpose but an unchanged bill for another purpose. Either it’s changed or it’s not; either it requires a new vote by the Senate or it doesn’t….
…Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all  Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.
And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact….