« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Van Hollen Dodges Constitutional Question on Pelosi Strategy to Pass ObamaCare

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  March 14th, 2010 at 01:06 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

On FOX News Sunday, Assistant to the Speaker of the House Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) followed his own advise contained in a memo leaked to Politico that advises silence on unconstitutional ObamaCare procedure.  The Constitution clearly states that bills have to be voted upon in the House before being presented to the President.  Leaders in the House are considering a complicated procedure to pass ObamaCare in the House without a vote and in violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.The Constitution says that:

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 approve 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. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said on FOX News Sunday today that “Speaker Pelosi is thinking about bending the rules and frankly making it so there is not a direct vote on the Senate health care bill.”  Pelosi is considering a rule that would be structured so that a vote on the rule would deem the Senate passed version of ObamaCare be passed if a health care reconciliation measure is passed.  In other words, if the rule is passed, then the reconciliation measure is passed, and then the Senate passed version of ObamaCare would be deemed to have been passed by the House.  This clearly is not an “up or down” vote on ObamaCare. 

Van Hollen responded to Cantor by saying that “we are going to have an up or down vote, whether it is going to be on the Senate bill or a procedure that will include passage of the Senate bill recognizing that we are amending the Senate bill.”  An up or down vote on a procedure is not an up or down vote on a bill.  Van Hollen was quick to attempt a shift away from this procedural debate, but Cantor brought the discussion back to this questionable procedure.

Cantor further responded to Van Hollen by saying that ”there should be, in the minds of most Americans, a direct vote on the Senate bill.  I have the Constitution right here. It is Article 1, Section 7.”  Cantor is correct and Republicans in the House should raise a Constitutional point of order against any rule that does not allow an up or down vote on the Senate approach to ObamaCare.  Any procedure short of a direct, up or down vote, on the Senate version of ObamaCare will call this bill’s content and procedure to pass the bill into question.  Van Hollen’s response to the charge that the procedure being considered to pass ObamaCare is unconstitutional is telling.

Van Hollen circulated a memo late last week advising members to avoid a discussion of the procedure to be used to jam ObamaCare through the House.  Chris Frates at Politico writes about a Van Hollen leaked memo prepared Democrat members for questions on the unconstitutional process:

The Van Hollen memo also advised members to avoid talking about the process.  “At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote — up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL,” the memo says. “People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.”

According to Fox, the Democrats are 5 votes short of the necessary votes needed to pass a procedure that will avoid a direct vote on the Senate version of ObamaCare.  The tentative tally, again according to FOX is 211 to 220.  They are 5 votes short of the 216 needed to pass and a promise not to force moderate Democrats to have to vote directly on the Senate version of ObamaCare may help pass the bill.  Promising members in conservative leaning districts to vote for a procedure rather than an unpopular bill may help to convince enough Democrats to vote for the procedure.  This is one instance where an unconstitutional procedure is being employed to pass a piece of legislation.

Dan Perrin has another excellent post today disussing the unpopularity of ObamaCare.

Tags: , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.bejohngalt.com Justrand

    At a time when I thought my “Outrage Meter” had peaked, the Dems decide to begin “DEEMING” laws into existence.

    We are becoming a Monarchy…with Queen Piglosi’s first royall decree being: “I and I alone will decide on your health choices!”

    FOAD, Queenie…and the sooner the better!

  • rsjt

    Inform your representatives in no uncertain terms that you will not be fooled by procedural trickery. And to proceed with the Slaughter option is clearly unconstitutional and therefore unacceptable.

    We aren’t going to take it anymore! Congress must operate within the framework of the Constitution. Period!

  • ColoKid

    as a means of passing the Senate bill seems a clear violation of Art I, Sec 7 of the Constitution. This sleight of hand trick won’t be enough to shield Blue Dogs from their conservative constituencies anyway. That the Dems would even consider such a move is a sign of desperation.

  • archer52

    Those that know, know. Those too ignorant to to care won’t catch on anyway. Those on the fence who really wanted change and healthcare have to be getting a little queasy, assuming they have any moral base.

    Cantor and the others need to keep dragging the crime out into the light. No democrat in a swing state can hide behind it if everyone knows that is what he is attempting to do.

    I think voters have learned a very valuable lesson. Never allow one party to control the government, especially the party that is infested with radicals from the sixties.

  • msctex

    Let them “pass” it, or whatever new verb they are going to have to invent that covers moving a Bill on for Presidential signature while skipping clearly delineated steps, in clear and utter violation of the Constitution itself. They’ve hidden in the shadows of the culture and national zeitgeist for generations, pretending to be all they are not, and managing to thrive upon their own contradictions. But they did the one thing they could not afford to do: they achieved true power. And now the light is shining in, and people are paying attention. Let them be what they are. People need to see this.

  • redneck_hippie

    Then, when they “deem” it passed, they can keep saying, well, we had the votes, so what’s the problem?

    If voting isn’t required, why do we have congress?

  • johnt

    Though I think Stevens and a couple of others would lower themselves to support an illegal extension of power here, it being a liberal illegality. If not and the fraud gets struck down, look to crazy liberals[?] to scream about judicial activism, which usually they like.
    Except when they don’t.
    Also, there may be some rather testy street protests from the now despised grassroots, at least I hope so. We can always say we learned that from the Left. People power and all that crap.

  • RealQuiet

    So, they are voting to enact a procedure to avoid a direct up and down vote on the Senate bill? Yeah, this is going to fly real good.

  • banzaibob

    For all the so called moderates to go home say they voted for a bill the folks don’t like. Maybe telling them you really didn’t vote for the bill, just some slimey bypass to the constitution to hide like the chickens they are. Somebody better call the fire department because some Congressmen are going to get their butts roasted.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    …Armed March?

    The Democrats are attempting what can only be considered a coup and We the People need to take this into our own hands. We cannot count on the GOP to actually undo this madness. There are simply too many RINOs, moderates, and spineless jellyfish in the GOP.

    I will NOT become any more of an indentured servant than I already am. Freedom to me is the abolition of Social Security, Medicare and any other federal program I support through the taking of my income and labor that redistributes that income to another citizen.

  • SunDogII

    not stating clearly, and forcefully, that passage by the Slaughter process would not be recognized as constitutional by their party. That any attempt to enforce such a law would be met, first by civil disobedience, and, if necessary, violence.
    If this is allowed, constitutional government is dead.

    • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

      ..enter government to shake things up. Rather the enter to put another notch in their career belt (Crist), stave off boredom, or to administer the state better than the Dems. Then there are the wealthy elitists who have nothing else to do so why not? In my opinion very few men and women of principle actually enter government. Very few of our current legislators would be able to measure up to the Founders in terms of honesty, integrity, and purpose.

      • SunDogII

        this is a basic defense of the constitution. It is the epitome of conservatism, and it must be done.

  • miguel Saavadera

    Let them do it … have the Parliamentarian rule on whether it is Constitutional or not … (I think not).

    After which ‘if’ the President shall sign it, charge him with failing & circumventing his responsibility of upholding the Constitution of the United States … i.e. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors … or of trying to ‘circumvent and subjugate’ the legal procedures as laid down in the founding document.

    • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

      If he actually did that, then yes, it would indeed qualify as an impeachable offense I think. At the very least, a direct violation of his oath of office to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

      But I do not think it is mathematically possible for the Republicans to get a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, even if every last Dem is defeated in November. The House, yes, but there’s only 1/3 of the Senate up for election which IIRC is not enough.

  • popdaddy

    Chris Wallace is a sorry excuse for the ?fair and balanced network? , He let this Van Hollon spin the democrat party socialist drivel while keeping Erik Cantor on a leash.
    Then we are insulted by smiling Bill Kristol and ditz Dana Perino representing the ?conservative? part of Wallace?s talking points panel.
    Good Grief! Fox is the only television network that might possibility report the facts of the unconstitutional process the socialist democrat party is pursuing.
    However, the ?guests? Fox News Sunday can?t / don?t get the message out to the folks!

    • edintexas

      I finally turned Wallace off. I couldn’t sit there and watch him give Van Holland all the time in the world to spout the propaganda. At one point Wallace made a half-hearted attempt to get him to answer the question, and Van Holland told him he would as soon as he finished setting up the preface to his answer. Good grief. I guess it was just as well I don’t get to go to these things, I’d have felt compelled to wipe the smirk off Van Holland’s face.

      Cantor got about as much time as a percentage of Van Holland’s BS as Dear Leader let the Repubs have in the “summit”. Of course Van Holland’s performance was to be expected – part of the Democrat “playbook” is to hog as much of the time as possible, sticking strictly to the talking points – no matter what the actual question might have been. But it is the job of the moderator to rein them in – and Wallace failed miserably.

      • edintexas

        That’s Van Hollen, not Holland. Still, Sorry would be a better name for him.

  • closetcon

    …deem my taxes to have been paid, without actually having paid them — after all, I intended to pay them, didn’t I? My circuit court jury duty to have been served without actually having served it? Heck, I deem my Amex bill to have been paid; I moved it from the “To be paid” pile to the “Paid” pile, fer cryin’ out loud!

  • cyncurl999

    It was all I could do to listen to Van Hollen on Sunday…