Democrats may pass healthcare without a vote!

[1bad65]

Like the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act was supported by a majority of Americans when it was written/passed/signed into law.

People like Ron Paul cautioned against it. I don't recall Obama, Edwards, or Hillary opposing it. Actually, I believe Hillary and Edwards voted 'Yes' on it. I believe Obama was not in the Senate yet. That, or he voted 'Present' again.

[Reality_Check]

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

This is a very slippery slope....

It speaks volumes that you don't understand that it is perfectly Constitutional, and that the Republicans used it quite often when they were in the majority. If it's a slippery slope, it's one we've been on for decades.

[SanHeChuan]

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

THERE WILL BE A VOTE. There will be a vote. They are just passing the senate bill and the changes with one vote instead of two. Don't listen to the talking heads.

[Drake]

The Patriot Act was supported by a majority of Americans when it was written/passed/signed into law.

People like Ron Paul cautioned against it. I don't recall Obama, Edwards, or Hillary opposing it. Actually, I believe Hillary and Edwards voted 'Yes' on it. I believe Obama was not in the Senate yet. That, or he voted 'Present' again.

Who supported the Patriot Act? Even us in the military were wary of it. And I don't care if democrats voted yes or no on it, because I'm not a democrat. It doesn't make it any less controversial.

[MasterKiller]

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

This is a very slippery slope....

We don't live in a democratic country. We live in a republic.

[Lucas]

For Rome!!!!!

oh wait wrong one....

[SanHeChuan]

We have the computer technology to consider a direct democracy. We could skip the representative part, imagine that!

[Luk Hop]

We have the computer technology to consider a direct democracy. We could skip the representative part, imagine that!

I think you just lost your case concerning healthcare if you are advocating direct democracy.

Yes I could imagine that. The polls show that the majority of people are in disfavor of the bill.

However, I would prefer not to place the citizens of this nation under the malicious vulnerability of the Internet.

If it is a right to have healthcare provided to all in this country as is believed by some, then it should be proposed as a constitutional amendment and voted on accordingly.

[1bad65]

Who supported the Patriot Act? Even us in the military were wary of it. And I don't care if democrats voted yes or no on it, because I'm not a democrat. It doesn't make it any less controversial.

My point was that when it was passed, over 50% of the American people suported it. While this healthcare bill has well under 50% support by the American people.

[1bad65]

Yes I could imagine that. The polls show that the majority of people are in disfavor of the bill.

Very much so.

If it is a right to have healthcare provided to all in this country as is believed by some, then it should be proposed as a constitutional amendment and voted on accordingly.

Well we need food and shelter to survive as well. Matter of fact, food is a bigger necessity than healthcare. So when do we get 'free' food from the Government? And 'free' shelter?

Really guys, where does it stop?

[1bad65]

We don't live in a democratic country. We live in a republic.

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

"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 approves, 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."

-Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the US Constitution

I don't see the word 'deem' in there. Do you?

[Reality_Check]

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

"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 approves, 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."

-Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the US Constitution

I don't see the word 'deem' in there. Do you?

Do you actually read other people's posts?

The Republicans used self-extracting rules quite often when they were in the majority in the House.

http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?to...roup_id=180829

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

So, it's okay when Republicans use self-executing bills? And, golly gee, when self-executing bills were used in the past, they weren't judged to be unconstitutional.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”

And from the Constitution:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

How again would this be unconstitutional?

[SanHeChuan]

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

What? Now you’re just obstinately re-stating what amounts to propaganda.

THERE WILL BE A VOTE!

We have explaned this too you. Again you're railing against an issuse you don't even understand.

[Luk Hop]

Very much so.


Well we need food and shelter to survive as well. Matter of fact, food is a bigger necessity than healthcare. So when do we get 'free' food from the Government? And 'free' shelter?

Really guys, where does it stop?

Don't get me wrong. I have no desire for the current healthcare debacle. I personally do not believe that it is a "right". If it is a right, then I also have the right not to partake of it and a growing number of people and states share the same thought as can be seen in the different states preparing and beginning to pass laws threatening legal action against the federal government. Hence the word "debacle".

Approaching healthcare in the manner of a constitutional amendment would provide for greater representation of the people and a much higher degree of scrutiny.

A proposed amendment would require ratification by 2/3 of the House and Senate and then 3/4 of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. Unless approached by constitutional convention.

[MasterKiller]

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

"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 approves, 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."

-Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the US Constitution

I don't see the word 'deem' in there. Do you?

Well, I don't see the word "vote" either...

I don't really approve of the way it's being passed, but Republicans have basically just decided to stonewall anything Obama does in an attempt to get more votes in the upcoming elections. They don't want a debate because they have no alternatives to debate about. I also don't approve of the idea of Americans being punished for NOT carrying insurance. Seems like a money grab from the lobbyists ala car insurance and mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws.