« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If you try the Slaughter Rule, you will lose the country. Not in November. In March.

Didn't like August? You'll hate this entire year.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. At no time in American history has the ruling party so insistently striven to impose its iron will on such a loudly unwilling citizenry. They are not listening, and they will stop at nothing.

When flim-flammery fails, try intimidation.
When intimidation fails, try chicanery.
When chicanery fails, try illegal.
And when illegal fails, try unconstitutional.

Let’s recap the last year of the Democrats’ Health Care Takeover adventure. Why? Because it was fun, and we won:

  • With 60% majorities in both House and Senate, and flush from victories on Porkulus and Cap-and-Trade, Obama and the media tried selling America on their signature issue – government health care takeover — with glib lies, fuzzy math, and blaming ‘evil’ insurance companies.
  • FAIL – it smelled like a government takeover.
  • They shut Republicans and their ideas out of all discussions, in order to shut down dissent.
  • FAIL – America noticed, and so came the August recess fiasco. So also came 99.54% party discipline, as only Joe Cao (from a hyper-blue district) voted with the Democrats, to date.
  • They skipped, dodged, and staged astroturfed townhalls.
  • FAIL – Twitter. Internet. Americans found and crashed the meetings anyway.
  • They sent their SIEU and ACORN thugs to intimidate ordinary outraged Americans.
  • FAIL – People took their beatings. And brought video cameras.
  • Obama and the media decided they had not made themselves clear. So, more speeches, ABC specials, and more blaming of insurance companies. And doctors.
  • FAIL – America actually HAD heard it right the first time. and polls really started to look nasty.
  • They accused Republicans of just being obstructionists, having no alternative plans themselves.
  • FAIL — Republicans were obstructing with the blessing of their constituents, and their always existing plans sounded a whole lot like cost-lowering free-market ideas. [correction, h/t Jeff Emanuel - Repubs lacked numbers to actually obstruct anything, which the press unerringly failed to ever point out]
  • Their own members began to revolt, so they were bribed and blackmailed
  • FAIL – Americans reacted very badly to the Chicago way.
  • They passed the Senate version on Dec 24 while America traveled and thought of loved ones.

At this point they really thought they had won this thing. Unfortunately for them, Americans are not like Russians, programmed to serve silently and cower in fear of their government.

It was just getting interesting.

  • FAIL – America noticed anyway. McDonnell and Christie smoked VA and NJ governor elections. Scott Brown campaigned as “Mister 41″, and easily won the “Do it for Teddy” seat in deep-blue MA.
  • They plotted to delay the seating of Scott Brown in order to get a bill passed.
  • FAIL – once that was made public, they denied they would have considered such a dastardly thing.
  • With America dead set against it……more speeches. And publicly dressing down the Supreme Court.
  • FAIL – again, America already got the message, polls sunk even further, and wobbling Democrats were catching bloody hell from their constituents.
  • With 60 out of the question and 216 shaky at best, they decided to break congressional rules and jam the bill through by “reconciliation”.
  • FAIL – the shaky 216 started to look more like 200.
  • With no more hopes of even passing the House, now they propose the Slaughter Rule — to declare the Senate bill passed without a vote.
  • FAIL – just wait and see.

Now we’re up to date. Let us look at the United States Constitution, which even Democrats will grudgingly acknowledge as the supreme law of the land (h/t Dan Perrin and Leon Wolf), the over-arching, indisputable law of the land (bolding mine, and Leon’s):

Article 1, Section 7:(excerpt)
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. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

In short, two quick and extremely easy points.

  • The same bill has to pass both House and Senate. The exact bill, word for word.
  • It passes by vote.

Which brings us to the Slaughter Rule, in which Democrats just flat-out defy the Constitution and declare a bill “passed” which has not been voted on. It’s been discussed at length here, here, and here, by constitutional scholars, veteran congressional experts, and other VSGs (very smart guys). Here’s the EPU’s Notes version:

Unable to pass the Senate bill in the House, unable to pass ANY bill in the Senate (thank you Massachusetts), and thwarted in their attempt at reconciliation parlor tricks, the Democrats have hatched a plan. The House will vote on and (presumably) pass a new bill, which is the Senate Bill with amendments. Call it House Bill #2. House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter will propose a rule deeming the Senate bill to be “passed”, the new rule will be voted on and (presumably) approved by the House, and the amended bill — House Bill #2 — will be sent to Obama to be signed into law.

Yes, that was the short version.

Now, let’s talk about consequences.

The American public was at first peeved about this government power grab, leading to wildly entertaining August recesses for congressional Democrats. As the Dems shoved non-matching bills through House and Senate, America got positively miffed. Witness McDonnell, Christie, and Brown.

Now America is flat irritated. And if the Dems try sporting this blatant middle finger at the Constitution and America, we will all see what happens when America is finally angry. Like Dan Perrin, I think Democrats will back down before doing this. But we’ve both underestimated their stupidity several times in this process. Nothing’s a safe bet anymore.

Before this, Democrats were already going to lose HUGE in November. There are more House Democrats retiring in “safe” districts than there are Cincinnati Bengals and Dallas Cowboys in prison. But if they try this stunt, the ensuing electoral revolt will be epic and irreversible, resulting in a Democrat Party crippled so irredeemably that I predict a new center-left party will emerge in the next 10 years, attempting to shed the stench of scandal and disrepute that will be permanently connected to the Democrats. Most likely the partisan press will accelerate their own death spiral as they are unwilling to speak ill of the Democrats.

But that is November. What will happen in March?

Six things I can think of, the first three within days. I couldn’t say what order, because things will move pretty quickly. So I list them how my mind sorts them.

1. The Supreme Court will strike it down within days.

I don’t remember which of the 3 authors I cited said this (or maybe I heard it on the radio), so I don’t know who to cite. But every American has standing here, due to the exceedingly far reach of the Health Care Takeover bill. Somebody will sue. I predict GOP members of Congress will, and it will go straight to the Supreme Court. They will strike down the whole caboodle, and they will do it almost immediately. Probably 6-3, with Breyer and Kennedy voting with the originalists. Their ruling is very likely to include language extremely damning of the behavior of Democrats.

2. Numerous states will declare statutorily under the 10th Amendment that this law will be unenforceable within their borders.

I’m guessing 20 states. The move has been afoot for awhile anyway, and this blatant flouting of the Constitution will trigger the America-loving, freedom-loving instincts into bold (if rash) action. And while they’re at it, they’re going to say the same thing about everything emanating from the EPA.

3. There will be public anti-government outrage so great that it will boil into violence.

I do not condone this; it will be ugly and more than a little scary. Lest I give anybody fresh ideas, I will not expound upon it other than to say it will be directed, not generalized — directed at objects, property, and symbols of government, not at people. Although those who voted for this Slaughter Rule would be wise to perhaps hang around in Washington for awhile.

4. (Even more) new candidates opposing incumbent Democrats will come out of the woodwork.

Many already have, but many good ones have considered, then declined. Many of those will change their minds, even in blue states. And new ones will pop up like dandelions. And a whole bunch of them will win. The leftist partisan national media currently think Republicans might, juuuuuuuust MIGHT, get 40 seats and the House back. Idiots. It was already going to be 80 and 8. But after this stunt, it might be 120 and 14. This is what happens when the entire center turns on a party.

5. State AGs will bring charges against sitting Congressmen for whatever they can plausibly pin on them.

Sedition is the actual crime (IMHO), and that’s a federal charge. But no USA will touch this, since they work for the president. Because members of Congress cannot be recalled, citizens will be thirsting for vengeance. Very loudly. State AG’s will be chomping at the bits to exact SOME form of payback, encouraged (or pushed) by their citizenry. Things like corruption, conspiracy, bribery, racketeering, tax fraud, and so on, will be easy indictments. As the last few months have shown, congressional Democrats have been so thoroughly corrupt for so long, nobody will even have to trump up anything.

6. Republicans will shut down business in Congress until January 5.

Then it will REALLY get fun.

Democrats will lose the country days after they pull the Slaughter Rule. They’ll have their illegal law both flouted and overruled, their members will be subject to investigations and indictments, and not a single item of interest will be signed into law, nor will any appointment be approved, before January 5, when a hundred or more of them leave Washington for good.

COMMENTS

  • qixlqatl

    We could be in for some extremely interesting times.

    • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

      Now we are talking the same language. Nullification can be done very peacefully. It can and should be done against a number of Executive Orders we have seen from Obama. Great post.

      Once we do it once with something big like healthcare, then Obama and his progressive, liberty stealing agenda are toast. The problem is, not a lot of people understand it, nor do they understand that it is actually constitutional. What it is not is secession. I wish more people thought like you.

      We are in for some interesting times.

      Read Nullification, Our Nuclear Option.

      http://www.redstate.com/gman2008/2010/03/05/nullification-our-nuclear-option/

    • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

      Read Dr. Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and current CEO of the Social Security Institute. His words underscore the very foundation of the issues facing us today:

      http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/news/essays/new-federalism-old-illusions/

      This is a must read for anyone truly wanting to begin to understand the genesis of tyranny in this country and what to do about it. Read his other posts as well on the subject:

      http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/news/state-sovereignty/

      Interesting times indeed.

    • ballawana13

      I have been praying for common sense in Washington, for a long time, but especially since November 2008. It appears that Nancy Pelosi has a one track mind and feels she is untouchable as Representative. She will lose the role of Speaker if this is shoved through.

      I have recently changed my prayers to be more focused on defeating healthcare reform. I don’t think the alternatives offered for March are viable. Once this monstrosity gets signed (whether by tricks like the Slaughter rules of deem it to be passed, or by actual votes), it will be extremely difficult to overturn. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take it up even though there are plenty of constitutional objections. I don’t think the states have enough power to do much other than to reprimand the federal government. Federal law trumps state law. The only way this is NOT going to happen is if they vote and it gets defeated. I pray that this is the final solution.

      • mbecker908

        There will be no “final solution” as far as Marxist programming is concerned. They are like HIV, they mutate and come back.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    If Francis’ and other reports are correct, the current plan is to drop abortion language changes and try to cobble together other votes by turning the reconciliation bill into a Christmas tree of “wish list” items in the hopes of getting 216 House members and 51 Senators to “sign on” to the provisions without amendment (and without Stupak et. al).

    Hence the trial balloon of adding student loan reform and perhaps other yet-to-be disclosed goodies to move votes that wouldn’t vote for ObamaCare alone – and that the Democrats know will never pass the Senate under normal rules requiring 60 votes.

    Then they will pass the Senate bill and proceed with Biden’s help if needed to pass reconciliation without amendment, pushing away Republican objections and/or using the media to label the Republicans as obstructionist, etc..

    And they will trust that the media can spin this as “just following the rules” to keep the American people from rebelling.

    • JSobieski

      Pelosi is increasingly treating her people like chattle.

    • renny

      to the process. Reconciliation is still not an easy and slick route for the Dems. under any circumstances.
      Additionally, reconciliation can ONLY be used for budgetary means (Byrd is the word and he says he will not vote for health care under reconciliation and will force the Sen. to obey his rule–God hope he is well enough to stand by his oath),
      so that all the thousands of pages about agencies and bureaus and committees and advisories and all that STRUCTURE needed to be put in place to start taking over the entire nation’s medical industry will be stripped from any bill going through reconciliation.
      Ergo, they will really NOT get either the current House bill or whatever makes up the Senate bill through reconciliation.

    • Flagstaff

      there will be no reconciliation bill to follow.

    • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

      Didn’t President Obama state: “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.”?

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-obama-jobs-health-care-ft/story?id=9033559

  • eastbaylarry

    will suppress the potential for violence some of us feel.

    Don’t give the POTUS an excuse to impose martial law.

    • michael_68_1999

      it will be very brief, and the Democrats would be finished, just like ACORN.

      For good.

      Unlike Europe, Americans have a very long history of fighting back when they sense they’re being repressed.

      Obama would have to shut down the entire internet to stop videos from being posted and Twitter updates keeping worldwide attention on his ham-fisted move. Believe me, the state-run media would relish airing videos of cops and soldiers beating up ordinary citizens and carting them away. Sure, they may have a liberal bias a mile wide, but they still love bloodshed more than anything else.

      And he’d have to impose martial law in defiance of the courts, which quickly would rule it unconstitutional.

      Besides, who is going to impose martial law? Blue, very blue states, certainly. But in Red states, like Nebraska, the governor would refuse to activate the National Guard.

      Go ahead, Obama. Let Eric Holder advise you that martial law is okey dokey artichokey. We haven’t had a president impeached and actually removed from office before.

      • Achance

        a governor could do. Yes, America is armed and a group of armed citizens could probably hold their own against police but they would have a prayer against uniformed military with automatic weapons.

        Anyway, there shouldn’t even be talk of potential violence from our side of the ditch. We need to be on the strategic offensive but on the tactical defensive and accept an attack from the left’s zombies.

        • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

          …semi-violent civil disobedience for adults (no screeching, cussing, kicking and screaming.). Maybe I can get it out this week, the timing sure does seem to be about right.

          Art, they may federalize the Guard, but what if the Guard won’t go? Who will Obama send to arrest them?

          My guess many in the Guard, and the Armed Forces will see their way fit not to obey an illegal order.

          Time will tell.

          • stigmo

            International troops don’t care.

          • renny

            We aren’t harboring any here at the moment, except those we volunteer ourselves for missions, and UN troops are notorious for AVOIDING physical action. They run away from demilitarized zones when someone’s military shows up. No UN troops are going to enforce anything here.
            What soldiers sworn to uphold the Const. but also sworn in allegiance to the commander in chief would do is up to their consciences. But I doubt we are going to come to that.
            However, people in the streets I can see. I’ll be in the streets at my nitwit rep.’s office tomorrow in the rain. He voted NO once and how “can’t make up his mind.” We’ll make it up for him.
            Never give up, never surrender.

          • Achance

            or the FBI at Ruby Ridge. it would take an ongoing insurection to change attitudes in either the NG or Active such that they would refuse ANY order.

            Where it could get very interesting very quickly is if a state’s governor and adjutant general ordered the NG troops not to follow federal commands. And even in public civilian or private employment, you’d better make very sure you’re right and that a court will agree with you when you refuse to follow an order because you THINK it is illegal. I’ve fired a fair share over the years for refusing an order that they thought was illegal. We went so far in our labor agreements as to remove most of that stuff from the employee or union’s scope by putting in provisions like the job was safe unless DOSH (our OSHA) said it wasn’t, the job was legal unless the AG said it wasn’t, etc.

          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            don’t carry bullets, or run when fired at. Now, if there’s a brothel in town..or girls needing raping…

          • Achance

            That would be a true war and the active US military would mutiny over that. If we’d reached that point, the Chinese, the former but now reconstituted Soviets, and maybe even some of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere would be getting ready to divvy up the former US. The Active military wouldn’t let that stand and we would have a military coup. Hopefully followed by some miltary tribunals and some swift hangings.

            That said, ain’t happenin’. We’re going to get control of at least one body of Congress in ’10. We’re going to thwart everything Comrade Obama tries to do and torture, figuratively of course, his associates and sycophants. Then we’re going to capture both bodies of Congress in ’12. I’m not optimistic about beating Comrade Obama because that saying about “once you go black you won’t go back” has several levels of meaning. They’ll wave student loan money for nothing at the yutes and get them out again. Women, both the feminazis and the sububan women who only had a dalliance, will not be able to reject their decision in ’08, so I think he’s going to be very hard to beat. His agenda will have no backing. He won’t have a Congress, but he’ll have the empty shell of the office. Unfortunately, that makes him very dangerous for foreign policy issues, but we’re just stuck with that; elections have consequences. And in ’16, we’re going to have the WH and the Congress and restore a legitimate government to the banana republic that the US has become under Comrade Obama.

          • rbdwiggins

            Obama will be relegated to lame-duck.

            There simply aren’t enough young voters to overcome the wrath of the middle-class once they realize they’ve been had. Complacency will not be a factor in 2012.

          • archer52

            In my career I met and was ashamed of some officers who would blindly follow orders regardless of the harm it could do to others. These men and women are not “bad guys” in the sense they wear lightening bolts on their collars. They have families, or girlfriends, and probably eat at mom’s for Christmas. But they are blind order followers, believing that questioning that order can do harm to them or their careers.

            At Ruby Ridge the FBI instituted a ROE that was later found to be far too aggressive. At the time some officers on scene refused to follow that order, seeing it for what it was, a green light for murder. However, one sniper, Lon Horiuchi followed those orders without hesitation and murdered a mother holding her baby.

            So before you say “they’ll never follow that order” remember there will always be someone who will. The good news is the vast majority of the soldiers and officers will not. At first they may follow the orders believing in keeping order, but at some point they will stand down. In my book I deal with that by having the President argue the point of why should our nation be exempt from peace keepers if the rest of the world allows them in. I wrote the manuscript in 1997. But can you see Obama making such an argument today? Absolutely, if the “crisis” gets bad enough.

            Ask yourself a serious question. How many of your neighbors would resist having U.N. troops inside our borders, especially if they were afraid enough. Most would go to work, watch Survivor on TV, and eat burgers on Friday. As long as the soldier isn’t on their front porch, they’ll say nothing.

            This lack of understanding of how OUR nations works is what Obama and maybe the next President hopes for. Forty years of public education, the last ten or fifteen pushing “global citizenship” is not by accident. It would not be a leap from being a global citizen to allowing global peacekeepers on our soil without complaint.

            Just because it hasn’t happened here doesn’t mean it can’t.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Why was Obama siding with Chavez and Castro when the military ousted the Honduras’ president when he shredded their constitution? I think he’s nervous his orders will not be obeyed if it comes to that.

          • Section9

            The Army didn’t want any part of Janet Reno’s nonsense. That was Treasury and BATF with some FBI and US Marshal’s Service thrown in. The Army may have provided some intel, but it was all the civilian side.

            Large parts of the professional military are overseas. BHO has to wonder about their loyalty to him. State national guards are another issue.

            The hideously inept nature of what he is doing is putting the US into a pre-Civil War atmosphere. I’m not sure things have been this bad since after the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

          • Section9

            Remember: the media is in his pocket.

          • Achance

            Kansas-Nebraska and, especially, Dred Scott, is that state governors aren’t being very out-spoken the way they were then or if they are they aren’t being heard outside their state. I know our has had little to say other than attacking federal over-regulation generally.

            Thanks for setting me straight about Waco; I knew the alphabet soup was there but I remembered a lot of armor as well, so I thought NG as well. Course, these days a County Mountie is uniformed and equiped like a combat infantryman in Iraq or Afghanistan.

        • rbdwiggins

          and I would advocate that civil unrest be used only as a last resort, and only if Liberty were at stake.

          That said, the number of law-biding citizens who possess Class III weapon permits would probably surprise most.

          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            …as a tactic, just as the Left uses them. Rent-a-Mobs. Only we don;t have to rent them. Just give them a mission, a few rules-of-engagement, a full two-hours of training…

            Yep, it’s probably the next step, whether we like it or not. Just grab the tail of the tornado and try to direct it.

          • Achance

            in the form of demonstrative actions and maybe a little strategic property damage and clearly defensive, and documented as such, physical violence. I draw the line at any sort of attack on anyone or any use or even brandishing of weapons or deadly force. That has to start on the other side of the ditch or anyone from our side of the ditch will just get the Waco/Ruby Ridge treatment; vilified by the media and the whole Country applauding our “suppression.”

          • mbecker908

            coming after civilians. The National Guard is a different story although I’m not real concerned about them.

            OTOH, local police forces, ATF, DEA, FBI are basically low grade military units that could – and, I think – would slaughter civilians.

          • rbdwiggins

            But leaning more toward the grass roots level: School board meetings, county and city commission/board meetings, planning and zoning meetings…

            A group of informed individuals with the wherewithal to steer the numerous local boards toward a fiscally-conservative, limited-government agenda.

            That group would likely field a few good candidates out of its midst.

            Add a (D), drop the apostrophe…. It’s Scots-Irish from the Squire and Sarah Boone era.

          • Achance

            is more lethal than most countries were not so long ago.

        • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

          Enough states nullify and the government does not have the manpower. Also, Obama risks losing his presidency. Nullification is constitutional. The Guard and other Military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the whims of the president. If he tries to get them to fire on civilians it may work for a very short time. I think they would turn on him after that and he would face impeachment come January of next year and possible charges.

          Read: http://www.redstate.com/gman2008/2010/03/05/nullification-our-nuclear-option/

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            I assume you mean as originally put forward in the 1830′s as the power to secede. I agree. But like it or not, that may become an issue again,

            But I do agree that states can “nullify” in a much more loose way, by saying certain federal laws they 1) won’t abide by and 2) even won’t allow enforced in their state. A national right to gay marriage comes to mind. So does a national mandate (a la China) for birth control.

            A lot of others will pop in to speculate about enforcement, etc, but the states will also consider that when they decide to nullify. We’ll have to cross that bridge when we get to it, but I’m generally for that kind of “nullification” because it tends to isolate an outlaw regime, which is what we’re seeing here now.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            The rump Federalists tried it, and it led to their annihilation at the polls, resulting in the “era of good feelings” where the Jeffersonians had no opposition.

            Calhoun tried it in South Carolina, nope.

            The Confederacy tried it, emulating Calhoun. Nope.

            Nullification has never worked and has done harm to those who tried.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Read the post. Watch the interview by Judge Napalitano who, if I am not mistaken, is far more qualified than Neil to address the issue. Read the books referenced in the post. As much as Neil would like to wish it away, it is a reality and there is a growing awakening in the country concerning nullification. Not secession, but nullification.

            Let Neil watch history. I plan on participating in it. It’s coming whether he wants it or not. The tired old strategies of the past are not working. The GOP has failed us. The Dems have failed us. The courts have failed us. And all along we never really knew that, after the war and when the Constitution was ratified, it was clear there were sovereign states, not a nationalist government. The fact the federal powers have absconded with our liberties in a most unconstitutional manner at a hardly noticeable snails pace does not preclude US from using a completely constitutional solution to the problem.

            I won’t let the government rub my belly with my tongue rolling out of my mouth like a lovesick puppy, begging for scraps at the handout table.

          • mschmitt
          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            By its nature it identifies the states as the final arbiter of the constitution, not the Supreme Court. Plan B is well defined over at the Tenth Amendment Center and is rather long to describe here. I also think it needs more work.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            That a huge number of people recommended this diary. As it states, “numerous states will declare statutorily under the 10th Amendment that this law will be unenforceable within their borders.” This is nullification.

            I find it rather heartening the top diary on Redstate is written and recommended by so many and I feel proud to be in such company. I think there is an awakening here of folks that we are in dire need of a solution to what many deem an intractable problem, but that, in the end, already has a ready made solution.

            Dr. Larry Hunter is the former policy advisor to President Ronald Regan and current CEO of the Social Security Institute and is one of the authors of the Contract With America. I am very proud to call my friend. Recently, Larry wrote:

            Restoring Federalism, if it is to happen, will mean restoring the attitudes and values and the stubborn fortitude against government exhibited by the Revolutionary Generation?the truly Greatest Generation. It will mean new constitutions and new ways of doing things that Washington politicians cannot even conceive. Restoring true Federalism and liberty will require setting in motion a New American Revolution, this time not a rebellion against a foreign tyrant sitting on a throne in some distant land but an uprising against a domestic tyranny by committee implemented by bureaucrats in the name of compassion and the ?greater good.?

            In the verse of poet William Butler Yeats?s The Second Coming, ?Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; The blood-dimmed tide is loosed.? But if the Washington Leviathan falls apart it will be because the periphery does not hold; nor need one state and region after another ?loose a blood-dimmed tide of anarchy? but simply go their own way, peacefully if allowed to, defiantly if forced to.

            If there is to be a second coming of liberty in America, I suspect the hollow shell of Washington like Moscow before it, will simply stop functioning, not explode in revolution. It?s now clear that it won?t be Arnold who leads the periphery out of Leviathan?s grip; but perhaps one hearty governor in the hinterlands of America sometime soon will simply lead his state to walk away from its overbearing master in Washington with a hearty AMF over their shoulder as they go.

          • Menlo

            The bill does not require state government to do anything. You can even refuse to pay the penalty for not buying insurance without anything happening to you.

            That’s why this whole response has never made any sense to me.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            The states are the final arbiters of the constitution, not the Supreme court. If a state does not want ObamaCare for whatever reason, it can nullify it. That won’t really work unless a large number of states do it, although I would not say it is impossible, just risky to go it alone or with just one or two states.

            Here is another one. Nullify the executive order giving Interpol the right to search your property without a warrant. That is unconstitutional in itself and there is not need to wait for the Supreme court to rule on it after somebody’s right has been violated. As the Tenth Amendment Center has shown, it is quite possible to have nullification legislation with teeth. Put the onus on them. If Interpol agents enter Texas, lets say, and we have nullified the executive order, the legislation can read that any Interpol agent who enters the state of Texas with the purpose of committing an act specially outlawed by the legislation they will serve thirty years in prison. Then lets see who is dumb enough to try it.

            The real answer to your question is that anything a state does not deem within the federal powers, powers granted to it only in the Constitution, can be nullified. So your question is actually pretty loaded. :-)

          • conservos
          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Well connected political junkie who never stops reading and learning about politics, philosophy, war, health, history, law, economics, and a host of other topics. If I am in doubt, I have access to a number of experts who over the years have ensured my knowledge is solid and double check about 80% of my work for accuracy.

            And I’m only getting better. :-)

          • conservos

            interesting how you can switch to populist civil disobediencia.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            Obama would order treasury agents or the military to get the guy out of prison on the basis of diplomatic immunity and then the Justice Department would arrest the Governor (especially if he was a Republican)

            Game over.

            I am afraid that the only way any sort of thing like this would have a ghost of a chance is if it were done during the administration of a President who was sympathetic and actually trying to challenge the law himself.

          • Achance

            was Buchanan turning a blind eye to seceded states’ actions against federal facilities between the secession of the Lower South states and Lincoln’s inauguration.

        • Flagstaff

          (“The Supreme Court will strike it down within days”), there will be no legal martial law. Wouldn’t happen anyway, because it would be political suicide.

          Although how a political corpse (or is that ‘corps’) can commit suicide, I’m not quite sure. He’d be lucky if it’s only impeachment that followed.

          (Bold indicates an emphasis to make sure no moonbat thinks I’m advocating anything illegal, or even anything at all.)

          • archer52

            Can a president institute martial law because people refuse healthcare? No, but he can issue executive orders identifying and targeting “domestic terrorists”. Will it stand? Depends on how willing the citizens are to look the other way and not get involved. Remember, like I said in my earlier post, it is always the 90/10 rule. If he can target and isolate the ten percent, or a good portion of the ten percent, he wins. The rest will fold and follow.

            The key to his success is going to be all about timing. Do you ever wonder why he privately makes fun of people with guns, but publicly claims he is a supporter of gun rights? He’s from the Chicago Machine that outlawed gun possession in their own city. So the chances of him being a closet 2nd amendment guy is remote to say the least. So why?

            I think he knows if he went for all that he is going for, healthcare, education, land rights, fishing rights etc. AND he tried to ban guns or somehow target gun owners his back door method of grinding down individual freedom would have been destroyed early on. He can argue that healthcare saves money, keeps people healthier, saves kids yada yada (all bull), but if he tried to say the same thing about a Constitutional right, the already lame arguments would be exposed for what they are, an attempt to control your lives.

            He and his backers’ theory is to divide and conquer. We gun owners may not lament about educational restrictions (which is what government controlled education loans will be all about) as long as he leaves our guns alone. The farmers out west are worried about their land rights, but not the recreational fisherman’s rights. Parents are worried about what their kids are learning in school, but may not see the problem with restricting cellphone usage, or salt in restaurants or taxing people who eat the wrong foods (Which by the way is the next big scam, as I write this FOX is arguing whether the government should tax people’s eating habit because of their drain on the medical system. None are arguing whether it is the government’s right or not. Amazing! Yet this is how it works. Eliminate the basic issue of government’s intrusion and make the argument about which intrusions are okay)

            All of these things are part of the bigger plan. For example,
            if the left teaches kids in school guns are bad, if the healthcare system Obama wants in place charges extra fees for gun owners (and they will because “guns are dangerous”), if the MSM beats on the people’s conscience with story after story of gun violence, if citizens in cities are prevented from owning weapons (except the elites, odd, huh?), if law enforcement is encouraged to seize guns at any opportunity (and we did), what is the end result and how does that differ from an outright ban? Except it is like slowly bleeding a person to death, by the time they realize they are in trouble they are too weak to resist. (Ted Kennedy’s foolish proposed tax on ammunition was one such “slow bleed” method.)

            Those that would rule us with an iron fist in a velvet glove are very much aware of their limitations as long as we can arm ourselves and protect what is ours. Just like the common criminal, the elitist set on robbing you of your freedom and your property will not try the house that is armed. They will look for the house that is unarmed and attack it first. It may take years to reach a point where we are unarmed, but mark my words, the second we are our free will, our freedom, will be the first thing we lose. Ask the Europeans and the Chinese feel about their “freedom”. They are stuck in their class, at their level, unable to break out, unless allowed to by that thin elitist layer above them. You have to go to the right schools, know the right people, be of the right family, say the right things or you are doomed to be just another drone. This serves the people in that thin level, but does not serve you or your children. Can you imagine a day when you look at your kid and apologize because you know he or she will NEVER be anything more than what you are?

            Obama was allowed into the upper level because he serves a greater purpose. He is being propped up like a cardboard cutout by people who are attempting to remake America. He isn’t an innocent “useful idiot” like Matthews or Olbermann, he is on board with the remaking. He has his own personal agenda. But he is not nearly smart enough to pull this off by himself. The entire leftist, radical sixties generation is involved. Soros is involved, and I’m sure many others more mercenary are involved.

            I’ve said this here many times. The problem with being inside a revolution is one of perspective. You cannot get far enough away from the situation to get the whole picture. Those committing these acts know this and are banking on our blindness.

          • Flagstaff

            Very good.

            Make a few edits for clarity and post it.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            I have more faith in our men and women in uniform. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the whims of a Marxist president. And if enough states do it the manpower does not exist to enforce the law. Period.

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the constitution. Read the post and it should become clear, although it takes some time to read through all the information to get a good understanding of what our founders intended. Still, it makes sense if you think of it this way:

            The founders fought the British for our independence. The catalyst was the Stamp Act, and it is not very important what that is right now. In the end, when we won, we looked at Britain, which was a nationalist country with the sovereignty in the Parliament of the country and said, basically, we will do the opposite. So thirteen sovereign states with a few provisions for a national government to loosely stitch us together seemed like a good solution and compromise as long as the powers were concentrated in the states with only a few powers, defined in the constitution, relegated to the federal government. The goal was to never find ouselves in a situation where a few could lord over the many and create an atmosphere of tyranny. Well guess what, look where we are today and ask yourself why. The answer is below and also resides in the fact that there are a lot of people like Neil who just think about this in the wrong way. I do not mean offense here, but that is just a fact as you will see when you read the post.

            As Jefferson stated quite eloquently, it makes no sense to set up such a system if the SCOTUS was the final arbiter of the constitution, because what you are basically implying is that states no longer matter and you are relying on a federal power to check the federal powers – a recipe for disaster and ultimately tyranny. It is like kissing your own lips or touching the tip of your right index finger with the tip of your right index finger. Such self-referential checks do not work. All it takes to chip away at liberty is for multiple instances in time to exist where a misunderstanding of the original intent of the founders, or some more nefarious intent to lead to the federal powers to abscond with our liberty, and that is exactly what has happened and exactly what has been chronicled quite well.

            Looking at history in context, it is clear this country was set up as a federation of states with the intent of a federal government intended to be weaker than the states, not the other way around.

            As indicated in my post via links to other sites, books, and other material, this philosophy was turned on its head over the decades and happened under the radar so slowly that we have become accustomed to thinking the feds rule the states and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things constitutional.

            If is patently absurd and not true.

          • conservos
          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            But I had to hold my nose while I did it. I thought about not voting, but believe that if one is to have a voice of protest they must be tied into the process they are critiquing.

            I heard about the arguments that voting for Obama could herald in a new age and they may have been correct. However, hailing from Canada I just could not bring myself to do that. Socialism sucks. It really, really sucks.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          That doesn’t mean we won’t need to muster courage against phyical threats.

        • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

          Something unconstitutional? That would assume they would follow orders. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not follow the whims of the president. I have more faith in our fighting men and women than that. I think the military would give Obama the middle finger. Why do you think Obama sided with Chavez and Castro on the Honduras crisis? Because the army went in and marched the leader out of the country for attempting to violate that county’s constitution. You don’t Obama noticed. What other explanation could there be for his teaming up with his Marxists buddies?

          • Achance

            with NG is maybe, just maybe, if the were ordered by the state’s governor or Adjutant General to not follow a federal order. But that’s only a maybe because the NG really doesn’t see itself as subordinate to a state governor or Adjutand General, they see themselves as a part of the larger military establishment.

          • avgjo

            obviates the need for a redistribution of force in the country, perhaps based on the Swiss model.

            clearer distinctions about who Nat’l guard takes orders from.

            Most important of all: education for all soldiers on Constitution, what constitutes a legal order, etc.

            A friend of mine who served 8 years told me how much time they spent learning international conventions, etc. Why not spend all that instead on American Constitution and legal/illegal orders? I guess I’ll find out if I get accepted into ROTC.

            That’s why we had a 2nd amendment in there. To keep the distribution of force even. It has been monopolized. We must legislate the distribution back into evenness.

            Think I’m crazy? Do a search for ‘founders and standing armies’.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      in the series of events.

      Withholding taxes in the defiance of the self-annointed, all-powerful Federal Central Government will be.

      And once the money war is on, the tensions that could create the environment for a shooting war will escalate substantially.

      • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

        That is part of nullification – the setting up of tax escrow accounts AND having enough states nullify a law it cannot be enforced.

        Also, I disagree the military would take unconstitutional orders from Obama. Once, I don’t think they like him. Two, I don’t think most of them like ObamaCare – they have kids and families as well and three, I don’t see them looking down a rifle at an unarmed civilian and shooting them just because the POTUS or some leader told them to. I think the leadership and the POTUS will be in for a big surprise.

        Exit question: Why did Obama side with Chavez and Castro, his comrades, in condemning the military actions against the Honduras president when he decided to rip up their constitution? Only one guess now.

        • conservos

          going to your county convention? making aims to going to your state’s?

          • http://www.thesubstratum.com GJ Merits

            Can’t recall a federal member of Congress, but you can recall a governor or state legislator. So either they follow the wishes of the people or we will find someone who will. As nullification seems to really be picking up steam at a pace I could never have imagined, what I will be doing at the local level is what millions of others will be doing.

            Tea Parties, 9/12, and other like-minded groups have concentrated at the federal level. Not too effective and kind of hard to really have leverage pressure. However, at the state level…. ;-)

            All politics as they say, is local.

  • LibertarianHawk

    I’d like to think they would. But I know that, by and large, the judicial branch stays out of how the legislative branch conducts its business.

    Keep in mind that Article I, Sec. 7 simply states that no bill can be sent to the president for signature into law until and unless it’s received the Yeas and Nays in both houses of Congress.

    From what I gather, the loophole here is that the bill in question wouldn’t be the one sent to the president….just like any other random procedural thing the House does on a daily basis.

    Rather, the bill that would be sent to the president would be more of a framework bill that would be reconstructed, piece by piece, using the reconciliation process.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      and I believe due to the nature of it, it would immediately land in either the DC circuit or the Supreme Court.

      You know, the very Supreme Court he bashed in the SOTU with them sitting right there, bound by decorum to sit in stony silence.

      • LibertarianHawk

        But I’m still very, very skeptical that the courts would have any basis for intervening here.

        I’m by no means a Constitutional scholar — let alone an expert on legislative sleight of hand.

        But, my understanding of the “Slaughter Strategy” is that the bill which wouldn’t receive a Yea/Nay vote (ie, “the Senate bill”) is NOT the bill the House would be sending to the president for signature.

        The bill that would be sent to the president’s desk would, instead, be something of an empty vessel — which would then get the reconciliation treatment by both houses.

        • E Pluribus Unum

          Regarding Senate Rule 22 (I think that’s the name, or 3-22 or something) regarding the use of the filibuster to deny an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, a fairly good argument can be raised that the Courts cannot intervene in debating rules of the Houses of Congress.

          But this is not a debating rule; this is the text of the Constitution telling the Houses exactly what is required for a bill to become law. I believe every American has standing (due to other reasons – namely the requirement that every American purchase a particular product), but I certainly believe that members of congress have standing on a violation of the Constitution.

          And I believe it would immediately start in the DC Circuit if not the SC, due to the nature of the charge.

          • LibertarianHawk

            But I’m not sure it’s correct to say they’re *violating* it — not, anyway, so long as the specific bill that the Rules Committee will just deem as having “passed” isn’t the one that leaves the House for the president’s signature.

            I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. But I get the sense that Pelosi & Co. are pretty confident they’re on solid constitutional ground doing this.

            That’s not to say that the courts won’t look with disfavor on a gambit to sidestep the Constitution. And maybe that disfavor will be enough to convince them to intervene in the legislative process.

            All I’m saying is that I struggle to find a violation of the *letter* of this particular law. And I fear that the courts will have to be able to identify one to justify crossing that line.

          • rbdwiggins

            regarding how a bill becomes law. The entire bill will be deemed unconstitutional on its face because of wanton disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land.

            Any member of Congress who willfully subverts the legislative process set forth in the Constitution will be deemed to be in violation of the Oath of Office that each member must be sworn before taking their seat, and they will be held personally responsible for their actions.

            Blinded by the Democrats’ fixation for government-run healthcare by any means possible, congressional overreach made this bill subject to the law of unintended consequences.

            EPU is right, the way this bill is constructed ensures that every taxpaying citizen and/or Social Security recipient has standing, and then, there’s consideration of the wanton violation of the Tenth Amendment which ensures that each of the fifty states has standing.

            Any bets on who will be first-in-line to secure an audience before the Court?

          • Flagstaff

            “Any bets on who will be first-in-line to secure an audience before the Court?”

            The most astute of the Republican presidential hopefuls will be first. Or the most confrontational.

          • etlib

            “I get the sense that Pelosi & Co. are pretty confident they?re on solid constitutional ground doing this” You’ve got to be kidding.!Since when did the constitution make any difference to this group?

          • writeblock

            …about constitutionality. The use of the Slaughter rule makes little sense since it attempts to use one bill to pass another. This is unprecedented–and on the surface absurd. In fact the whole process of amending a bill without appearing to change it is absurd. How do you amend a bill and not change it? If you change it, it goes back to the Senate changed, period. Then it must face a filibuster. The only way around this would be to vote on the Senate bill, pass it, send it to the President for his signature–and THEN amend it with another bill.

    • lukematthews

      I really don’t think the Supreme Court would step into this mess, especially that quickly. It is a flagrant violation of both the spirit and the letter of constitutional law, but the court is loathe to walk into political fights. For the most part it’s because they know they can’t win. Dred Scott rent the country asunder type thing. Bush v. Gore made them want to even the score.

      Instead, the Supreme Court will have to gut the thing of its essence thereby rendering it pointless. Kinda like McCain-Feingold. They didn’t overrule Congress, they merely stripped it of its teeth. Trying to tell Congress how to do its job is not really possible. Congress is supposed to run itself. Courts can only rule on violations of the law, not process. That could take years.

      • Flagstaff

        rule on a claim that a bill-passing-another-bill is either meaningless or unconstitutional or both. There may have been a hidden message in his speech the other day, beyond “don’t bother to provide seats for the Supreme Court at next year’s SOTU, Barry.”

        But maybe not.

  • Viet71

    Have to say, while I’m law-abiding, I’ve also got lots of canned goods, my own well, a powerful generator, and lots of ammunition.

    It’s going to be fun to watch the upheaval.

    BTW, I suspect it will be 9-0, not 6-3. I don’t think much of Ginsburg, Sotomayer, or Stevens, but they’re not traitors.

    • LibertarianHawk

      Look, I despise what the House is trying to do here.

      But the courts can only intervene on the legislature’s procedures when those procedures violate Article I, right?

      If I understand what they’re planning on trying to do with Slaughter, then I think one could make the argument that they’re violating the spirit of Article I, Sec. 7 by trying to sidestep it….but it would be hard to argue that they’re violating the letter of it.

      It says that a bill sent to the president to become law must be subjected to the Yeas and Nays in each house. But they’re not planning on sending the “Senate bill” to the president.

      They’re planning on sending a new bill, one that would only be a framework whereby both houses can work within the process of reconciliation to mark up.

      They’re saying they can do this by having declared that the Senate bill had passed the House. But only for their own internal purposes….not for the purpose of sending it to the president’s desk for his signature (which would, obviously, violate Art I, Sec. 7).

      • Viet71

        not sure of the best argument.

        It’s clear the Founders intended the House and Senate to function (a) independently, and (b) differently. The House was to be the chamber for the People’s voice. The Senate was to be the place for educated grown-ups.

        The Constitution clearly contemplates that each body will function to offset the excesses of the other body.

        Seems to me the Slaughter Rule violates clearly the spirit of Article I, and that a good constitutional lawyer should be able to make the case for a literal violation of Article I as well.

        • flicka47

          So,do we start contacting our Representatives now,and asking them to file with the Supreme Court to have this declared un-Constitutional if the House should pull this travesty?

          And, after that, while I love the idea of Congress being unable to get anything done til next year, I don’t see how, unless names are named,and charges brought for this un-constitional action that any of these arrogant folks won’t just keep trying more of the same. We all ready know they are not listening,and are willing to violate both the will of the American people and the Constitution.

          Do the R Reps just have to move into the SC building and start filing charges daily against these folks?

          • Viet71

            n/t

        • LibertarianHawk

          I certainly agree that the spirit of Article I is being violated. But I don’t know if that will be enough to get the courts to cross that sacred line.

          It seems to me that the final word on what is and isn’t appropriate in cases where either house is acting intramurally belongs to the respective house of Congress itself.

          Only when both houses resolve to send legislation to the president for signature into law would the “Yeas/Nays” clause in Art I, Sec. 7 seem to apply over and above each body’s internal rules.

          Well, that’s not what they’re doing here — not, anyway, with the “Senate bill” that the Rules Committee is going to deem as having “passed”.

          They’re going to send a bill to the president’s desk alright — complete with the Yeas/Nays required by Art I, Sec 7. It just won’t be the bill the Senate passed….for which they’d seem to be either short of having the necessary votes, or very wary of actually having to vote on.

          • Viet71

            question,” which the Court would surely avoid.

            I see i as a separation-of-powers matter, over which the Court has jurisdiction.

            Wish there were a constitutional lawyer to weigh in here.

          • Menlo

            I’d think it would violate senate opponents’ due process rights to have the rules of senate procedure changed against the rules.

          • Viet71

            the courts have held the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments apply to (a) individuals, and (b) corporations. These cases have upheld individual and corporate rights as against the state and federal governments.

            Nothing in case law, to my knowledge, suggests “due process” applies to an individual’s grievance against the Senate or the violation of Senate rules.

          • Menlo

            The rules apply to members of Congress who had the rules changed on them against the rules. And if the rules are not laws, binding on Congress, then there effectively are no rules.

            I consider the term “case law” to be an oxymoron; but that’s another subject altogether. Obviously we’re talking about what happens in practice which is all that really matters right now.

          • etlib

            that “It just won?t be the bill the Senate passed”

            The whole point is for the house to pass the same bill as the senate so there is no need for an additional senate vote. By necessity the house will “deem” that it has passed the Senate bill. Otherwise the situation would still require a senate vote.

          • http://thevailspot.blogspot.com rvail136

            because the House has to pass the exact same bill…not vote for a “rule” that “deems to have passed the bill…that doesn’t work constitutionally. That’s why people are getting very very angry.

            When you put aside the constitution in order to ram something through, the mass of the people tend to become…annoyed. We’ve not been annoyed in a very long time. The last time we were, we fought a 4 year war against ourselves…and hundreds of thousands perished…moslty of disease, but we still lost more dead in the Civil War than in all the other wars combined. Think on that before you pull that particular trigger. Revolutions and civil wars are the bloodiest of wars for good reason…

        • writeblock

          It cannot be possible to pass bills without voting on them directly. This is to deny the right of the people to be heard through their representatives. Nor can changes to bills be made unilaterally by one chamber–acting as if no such changes were made–without profoundly affecting the rights of the other chamber. Certainly GOP senators would be aggrieved if changes to a bill were made without that bill being returned to the Senate and subject to a filibuster as a changed bill according to established procedure. At issue would be whether such a bill could be a legitimate law having violated long established rules in such an outrageous fashion.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        It is a direct violation. Whatever bill is presented to Barack will not have been passed by vote in both houses.

        – if the Senate bill, it was not passed in the House.
        – if an amended Senate bill (what I’ve been led to believe), it was not passed in the Senate.
        –if an empty “framework” bill (which you believe), it was not passed in the Senate.

        Anything they send to be signed, other than an intact Senate bill passed by vote in the House, violates, directly, A1S7.

        • LibertarianHawk

          I completely agree that both houses will have had to pass (by a bona fide vote of Yeas and Nays) whatever is to become law by way of the president’s hand.

          Suffice it to say, if a bill is sent to the president without having been passed according to the guidelines in A1S7, then it will be challenged in court and almost certainly thrown out.

          I’ll confess to being about as clear as mud about what exactly the Dems are trying to do here. I’ve read a couple of informed dissections of the basic underpinning of the Slaughter House Rules (!) and it’s some pretty esoteric nonsense.

          So don’t put much stock into what I’m saying. It’s altogether likely that I don’t have all the facts straight.

          • etlib

            “So don?t put much stock into what I?m saying. It?s altogether likely that I don?t have all the facts straight.”

            Finally you say something I agree with.

        • Viet71

          But I’ll leave the exact argument to an experienced constitutional litigator.

          BTW, I’m betting ACLU will weigh in heavily against both the Slaughter Rule and the mandates.

        • Flagstaff

          Lincoln argued, “Let’s say a dog has four legs. Then let’s say that his tail is another leg. How many legs does he now have? No, the answer is not ‘five,’ it is ‘four.’ Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

          Passing a bill that says another bill has passed does not mean that it has passed. So the court’s ruling should be first that the Senate HC bill has not passed both houses of Congress and is therefore ineligible to be Constitutionally signed into law. Second, they would rule that there is no meaning to the Slaughter bill, and therefore it would have no effect even if signed.

          And third, there would be a moral uprising in the country, if not a physical one. It’s not nice to mess around with the electorate in such an obvious way.

          I think the whole thing is a smokescreen, anyway. The same people who would vote against the Senate bill would vote against the Slaughter bill as well. No one unwilling to vote for the Senate bill will be willing to vote for the Slaughter bill. If the Slaughter bill can pass, so can the Senate bill.

          Just as I think that reconciliation is a smokescreen. Something else is going on, even if it’s just to distract us while they stall for time.

          • Flagstaff

            I made the assumption that the Slaughter bill would go to the Senate and receive approval. Without that, EPU’s analysis seems flawless. And it seems unlikely the Senate would pass it. Too bad.

      • eastbaylarry

        this ‘new’ bill has never been to the senate. How can they how to make that work?

  • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

    They accused Republicans of just being obstructionists, having no alternative plans themselves.

    FAIL ? Republicans were obstructing with the blessing of their constituents, and their always existing plans sounded a whole lot like cost-lowering free-market ideas.

    That’s just not true. For the vast majority of the #hcr debate, though the Democrats accused the GOP of obstructionism, the simple fact was that the Republicans lacked the numbers to have done one single thing to obstruct or stop Obamacare from going forward. The lack of “progress” on #hcr throughout 2009 was 100% the result of Democrat infighting, not one bit because of anything the powerless GOP superminority did.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      The best the Repubs could do was muster their unwavering 40 and 178.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel
        • E Pluribus Unum
  • nessa

    Kipling wrote this about the Battle of Maiwand in 1880, but it holds more than a passing resemblance to events past and future among the Congressional Democrats.

    That Day

    It got beyond all orders an’ it got beyond all ‘ope;
    It got to shammin’ wounded an’ retirin’ from the ‘alt.
    ‘Ole companies was lookin’ for the nearest road to slope;
    It were just a bloomin’ knock-out — an’ our fault!

    Now there ain’t no chorus ‘ere to give,
    Nor there ain’t no band to play;
    An’ I wish I was dead ‘fore I done what I did,
    Or seen what I seed that day!

    We was sick o’ bein’ punished, an’ we let ‘em know it, too;
    An’ a company-commander up an’ ‘it us with a sword,
    An’ some one shouted “‘Ook it!” an’ it come to sove-ki-poo,
    An’ we chucked our rifles from us — O my Gawd!

    There was thirty dead an’ wounded on the ground we wouldn’t keep –
    No, there wasn’t more than twenty when the front begun to go;
    But, Christ! along the line o’ flight they cut us up like sheep,
    An’ that was all we gained by doin’ so.

    I ‘eard the knives be’ind me, but I dursn’t face my man,
    Nor I don’t know where I went to, ’cause I didn’t ‘alt to see,
    Till I ‘eard a beggar squealin’ out for quarter as ‘e ran,
    An’ I thought I knew the voice an’ — it was me!

    We was ‘idin’ under bedsteads more than ‘arf a march away;
    We was lyin’ up like rabbits all about the countryside;
    An’ the major cursed ‘is Maker ’cause ‘e lived to see that day,
    An’ the colonel broke ‘is sword acrost, an’ cried.

    We was rotten ‘fore we started — we was never disciplined;
    We made it out a favour if an order was obeyed;
    Yes, every little drummer ‘ad ‘is rights an’ wrongs to mind,
    So we had to pay for teachin’ — an’ we paid!

    The papers ‘id it ‘andsome, but you know the Army knows;
    We was put to groomin’ camels till the regiments withdrew,
    An’ they gave us each a medal for subduin’ England’s foes,
    An’ I ‘ope you like my song — because it’s true!

    An’ there ain’t no chorus ‘ere to give,
    Nor there ain’t no band to play;
    But I wish I was dead ‘fore I done what I did,
    Or seen what I seed that day!

    • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

      VB

  • redneck_hippie

    Last night on his radio program Mark Levin said this is the next closest thing to martial law on the part of the Democrats if they try it. The constitutional expert who Mark had on his show as a guest also said that what Slaughter is proposing to do is the next closest thing to martial law. The point is, the president would be forcing enactment on the citizenry of something that was never voted upon in Congress according to the EXPLICIT instructions in the Constitution. He said that if this was tried, there would be a race to the courthouse by “scores” of lawyers to bring cases, and that he would be one of them, and it would immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

    Meanwhile, the cabal in DC say, oh well, what’s our next trick?

    • michael_68_1999

      the Democrats pull out, there seems to be an immediate backlash. That’s all they have, tricks. No real policy solutions.

      It’s rather amazing, in a little more than a year they’ve squandered any moral high ground they might have had. They’ve defined themselves as the party of corruption and outright grasping for power.

      They’re dying. That’s all this is about. Their dream of absolute control over all of us is dying.

      • redneck_hippie

        demonstrated what they really are. Until Obama came, America had not seen the naked greed for power that is the essence of leftism. Without force, the leftist is unable to achieve his utopia. With force, the leftist is unable to keep his job.

  • JSobieski

    http://www.redstate.com/jsobieski/2010/03/12/stupak-2-obamapelosi-0/

    The AP is reporting that the discussions with Stupak are over. Presuming the Stupak 12 stay solid, Pelosi is left with brute force arm twisting.

    The next few weeks should be fun to watch. I may watch MSNBC just to enjoy the loathing.

    • LibertarianHawk

      I’ve already read where at least one (and it may have been more than one) who were counted among those 12 have indicated that they would buckle.

      And, now the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is leveling their own threats regarding the language pertaining to illegal immigrants.

      There, too, at least a couple CHC members have indicated they’ll bite their tongue and vote for passage…despite their displeasure with the Senate bill’s language.

      But both groups are SOL — the immigration provisions can’t be amended by reconciliation, and the abortion ones wouldn’t get the 51 votes necessary after Senate Republicans pledged to vote unanimously against it.

      • JSobieski

        Pelosi is playing defense in that far more “Y” votes are leaning “N” than “N” votes appearing to lean “Y”.

  • Richard Mullins

    of March 18th and the talk of Slaughter rule is more an acknowledgment of failure. I’m sure that the date will be moved up until it gets to close to November 2nd, before that day, they will take the vote and those that vote yes are gone.

  • RealQuiet

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTRmOGE3YzUzZjMwZjM4OTlmYWFlM2VlZWZlODIxZTQ=

    She doesn’t have the votes. According to the latest tweet at NRO she is 10 short. She’s had it with Stupak. So she is going to try to endaround the Constitution. This lady is frickin’ insane.

  • Common_Cents

    Bluff or are they going postal?

  • eastbaylarry

    That sometime in mid-late November the ‘voted out’ dems will say WTF and pass this bill then?

    At that point they will know they have nothing to lose and might think this would be a good ‘ip yours’ to the republicans replacing them.

  • ladyimpactohio

    http://www.redstate.com/ladyimpactohio/2010/03/11/conference-call-with-reps-gingrey-mcmorris-rodgers-on-healthcare/#comment-127

    Rep. Gingrey when questioned by a caller stated he felt the parliamentarian?s ruling yesterday would make the Slaughter Rule moot. But even he admitted he does not know and/or understand all the games the Dems can play and every single one of the complicated rules of the House and Senate.

  • Menlo

    Republicans aren’t going to do a thing except talk, and very few ordinary citizens, at least percentage-wise, are going to care.

    No judges are going to do anything either. Nearly every judge in the nation sides with the Democrats on everything, having gone to “law” school where they teach not how to follow the law and Constitution but how to defy it (or make it fit to the side of the Democrat Party platform). This would be tossed out of court so fast it would make your head spin. It won’t see the light of day in the Supreme Court since there would be no cert granted to any appeal, which would probably be five or six years away anyway.

    Right now, especially with Stupak’s group probably down to about half a dozen or less, I see NO WAY this thing is not passing as each and every one who is “undecided” will most certainly support it. Nancy and Harry will get the votes.

    • IJB
    • Scope

      n/t

      • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

        We all fall back into that from time to time, but it is a sure signature of the whiny Left, and the cynic.
        Doesn’t look good here, though.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    One, we find out where guys like Mitch actually stand once they’ve been bitch-slapped with a commie frying pan. Still wanna play nice?

    But more important, we (the people) will no there is no sense in talking about indictments any longer. We move straight to the hangings.

    And I’m serious here, in the sense THEY have to be made afraid, really afraid…afraid of things they always thought were unimaginable. They are much like children, only calculating what Mother will do, if she finds out, or Fatha, if he does, That is the paradigm changer.

    Let them know that what they are about to do is like stealing hubcaps off a car, any car, in Vegas in 1970. The law is the least of their worries, cause the law don’t run this country. Da Mob do.

    • izoneguy

      • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

        …like a punch thrown at your chin, they have to openly declare themselves first. (The John Wayne Wayne.) Then counter with awful force.

    • Viet71

      I want to see the Slaughter Rule laid out before the Supreme Court.

      I’d bet it would fall 6-3 to 9-0.

  • AndrewHyman

    Suppose that Pelosi decides to go with some version of the Slaughter Solution, so that House members will not have to directly vote for the Senate Health Bill. Still, there’s no way those congressmen can avoid the consequences of approving the Slaughter Solution: Obama would then sign the Senate Health Bill into law, and the Senate could well reject the Reconciliation Bill. Pelosi has admitted as much:

    So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, the President signs it or doesn?t, it?s ? people would rather he waited until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President.

    So, regardless of whether the “Slaughter Solution” is constitutional and regardless of whether the “Slaughter Solution” complies with the statute regarding reconciliation, still it would not really help wavering House members, IMO.

  • LibertarianHawk

    He said in his NRO interview that Democratic leaders in the House believe they have the votes for this to pass without him and his fellow abortion holdouts.

    I don’t know why he’d lie about them thinking that. Let’s hope that either he’s wrong or they’re wrong.

    • Viet71

      Just an opinion.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      That at this point, they’re making “fix” promises to win over 216 votes that the Senate plausibly can follow through with on reconciliation. They never could sell Stupak and pro-life House members that the Senate would approve their language because it’s obvious they won’t.

      What Stupak is discovering is that the House vote for his amendment was expedience for most of his Democratic colleagues, not conviction.

    • JSobieski

      They don’t have the votes–Stupak is just sad about the course of events

  • Viet71

    Then we’ll see.

  • renny

    If no one in the House actually votes for the Senate bill, the bill cannot go to the pres. for a signature. O can sign his name to a napkin but it doesn’t make it a law.
    We’re not a banana rep. yet, altho’ every day this pod person is in office, we get closer to both ban rep standards: dictators and bankruptcy.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics
  • jccbin

    will manufacture guillotines at 4 factories just outside Washington DC and all 50 state capitals.

    Tyrants (and their laws) must be destroyed.

  • dajeeps

    The request for citizens to report “fishy” stories about the HCR plan to flag@whitehouse.gov.

    I thought I’d mention it since I had a blast joining in on the campaign to send in anything and everything that was “fishy”, like pictures of fishermen, Shamoo, sharks, and other worderful forms of sea life. Hey, they asked for it, so they got it.

    • dajeeps

      Lecompton was pretty wild, issues surronding the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott as well. If there is any other example of where the political system failed at every level due to short sighted selfishness and arrogance it was the prelude to the civil war.

      If we can learn nothing from history, it is bound to be repeated. Democrats should take heed that they will be responsible for whatever comes after if they dare try to pass this thing without voting on it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2010/03/12/road-to-serfdom-slaughtered-road-to-anarchy-deemed-paved-by-march/

  • Flagstaff

    “Republicans were obstructing with the blessing of their constituents”

    OK, so Jeff pointed out the technical correction. It’s still true that Republicans were saying “no” with the blessing of their constituents. That fact should be part of every answer when ‘obstructionism’ is brought up.

  • Finrod

    Well-said. Part of me hopes they try this, just for the total crash-and-burn that will happen as a result. I get the impression though that they’ll pull back just before plunging into the abyss.

    • janis

      Matter of fact, they absolutely adore the abyss. It’s where the Beast resides, after all. If the abyss ever held a homecoming, it would be wall to wall Dems.

      And I fear your wish is about to be granted.

  • Castor

    If the Dems use the Slaughter Rule they will be led to a slaughter.
    Unfortunately I?m in Per? and I?ll have to get a plane ticket to join in on the fun.

  • lukematthews

    I do believe there will be violence but it shouldn’t and probably won’t come from the right. The union thugs, ACORN fascists, enviro-wackos, and anarchist types will come spilling out of the woodwork to beat on demonstrators. That will definitely happen.

    I also think that a whole lotta Democrat officials are going to find themselves persona non grata in public. Nothing discomforts a collectivist more than public approbation of their actions. They will be especially defensive and probably more radical. I think this really will cleave the country.

    It’s going to get ugly.

  • DRayRaven

    If the Dems use the Slaughter Rule to pass Obamacare, you’re right: it will be tossed out by the SC. I’m not sure it would go straight to the SC, but it would eventually wind up there – and Obamacare will be gone.

    The Dems will raise hell, but they won’t have anywhere near the votes to pass either of the current bills. It will be back to the drawing board or (more likely) nothing at all.

    A few other points seem to be exaggerated. For example, I don’t think we will see violence on the streets. But the Dems WILL lose both houses of Congress in November, and Obama will be all but toast for 2012.

    Remember how the libs loved to say Bush was the “worst president ever?” Seems sort of ironic, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama has sole claim to that title. Jimmy Carter must be smiling.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      I said, in essence, there would be substantial acts of arson and vandalism, not generalized, but directed at symbols of government and leftism. And they won’t be done by mobs, they’ll be done by individuals.

      Right-side people don’t riot. They barely know how to gather at all and express unhappiness.

  • rbiii

    … I think you’ve outlined what is probably going to happen if the Democrats circumvent the Constitution with the Slaughter rule.

    I hope someone comes to their senses before they try it, though. For the good of the country.

  • lunarmanathome

    scheme of things, they will have achieved a major victory in increasing the size of government, shattered personal liberties into tiny bits of dust, and strengthened the “collective”.

    Let’s be honest here – I clearly see the pendulum swings in the political landscape. What I also see is that the center of gravity has been slowly shifting left for years. This just resets it even further from the center and is a fantastic (I use tat word in horror by the way) position for all the little socialists we are educating in our public school systems.

    I want to believe otherwise, but the socialists in Democrat disguise have been far more effective over time than us conservatives – and that pisses me off.

  • AndrewHyman

    Former US Circuit Judge Michael McConnell has now weighed in about the “Slaughter Solution.” Here’s a link:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

    If you cannot access the full thing, just search for it on Google News, and you’ll get the full text that way.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    If the liberals try this, they they’ll reinvent a Kerryism:

    “I ‘voted’ for it before I voted before I ‘voted’ for it.”

  • Scope

    An article on American Thinker today quotes the words of a Stanford Constitutional Law Professor, Michael McConnell-

    “As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/post_193.html

    Also, from the Supreme Court media website, a summary of Clinton v. City of New York-

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_97_1374/

    We all know that the Slaughter Rule is unconstitutional. It is just nice to see the opinion of a Constitutional Law Professor. It is also nice to see a previous SC case where the justices ruled in favor of the Constitution. It gives me hope that they will do so again, even with a different makeup of justices.

  • Scope

    We are engaged, and in total agreement which is going some, with the diversity of ideas and opinions here at Redstate.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      I think some people are not really “into” the Slaughter Rule. :)

  • the_invisible_hand

    I don’t see the SCOTUS getting involved at all. I don’t see any violence or states opposing. This is similar to the predictions of dozens of states rejecting the stimulus when in reality all the states took some of the money and the vast majority, even red states, took all of it. I don’t see any violence either because conservatives are not supportive of civil unrest. That is a radical notion and conservatism is about social order. We aren’t hippies.

    And as for Republicans making the case against reconciliation and the skirting of the constitution, I think it is a political loser. For one thing I’ve never seen any use of this type of reconciliation cost any politician in an election. Never. People voting in a district or in a state want to know what the politician plans to do to implement a party platform.. I don’t see many quibbling about how they do it. Maybe you do, but when Vice President Dick Cheney voted to break the 50-50 tie on reconciliation I never saw one person mention it later in the 2004 election. No one cares about this inside baseball stuff.

    I read the diaries here about it and I get confused about what exactly is happening with it. I am not a Mensa member, but I consider myself a bit intelligent and I glaze over with some of this procedural stuff. I don’t think it will matter to most people and most people won’t understand it. What matters is policy. We can beat the Democrats on policy and should concentrate on that. You aren’t going to get riots against reconciliation. You aren’t going to get a sweeping electoral change based on a legislative processes.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      Doesn’t mean the evidence is not there.

  • http://truthupfront.blogspot.com jsanzone

    I still blame the GOP. Bunning alone has managed to hold things up for days at a time.

    And remember when Stupak’s amendment was voted upon? It was pointed out by several onlookers that had Republicans simply voted ‘present’ it wouldn’t have passed and a whole block of Democrats wouldn’t have supported the bill.

    Then again, that was about 6 1/2 versions ago.

    But the point is Republicans made this about kickbacks and abortion, rather than the true betrayal that the bill is fundamentally. It’s for that reason that I’m not sure how much we should trust a GOP majority under Obama with legislation concerning immigration or cap-and-trade.

  • mikerazar

    how there can be Congressmen dumb enough or with so little loyalty to the Constitution that they would vote yes on a Slaughter vote but no on the bill itself. They can’t really believe their constituents won’t get it.

    Maybe I’m naive (no cheap shots, please), but I think the whole Slaughter thing is a red herring to divert attention and debate from the horrible features of the bill.

    Put me in the camp of those who believe the Supremes will rule against it so fast, that it will have Nancy seeking an exorcist. Maybe one of the many lawyers here can opine on whether this is a case for which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction constitutionally.

  • Flagstaff

    # They sent their SIEU and ACORN thugs to intimidate ordinary outraged Americans.
    # FAIL ? People took their beatings. And brought video cameras.

    It isn’t often mentioned and didn’t get the attention it deserved at the time.

  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    When the time line is all laid out to look down it one step at a time ,it really makes you think how far the left will go and will use anything necessary to get their way. Kinda scary but exciting to watch the push back.

    Comforting to know the states are not just standing by watching but are ready to act as well
    .http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0