If the Speaker of the house who acts like she is Marie Antoinette, Ms.Pelosi, invokes the Slaughter rule to by- pass a vote on the Senate passed Health Care bill, which it appears she may do to avoid a negative result. She will not only be violating her oath of office, that says she will protect and defend the Constitution, but she will be violating two provisions of the Constitution, which will effectively make what the house is trying to do illgal, If this b#st*ard bill reaches the desk of the president, Obama will be duty bound by his oath of office to declaure the bill null and send it back to the House without his signature!
It has been pointed out in several venues in the past few days, Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before a bill becomes law, (1) “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”; (2)“… 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.”
It is those two provisions of the Constitution that would be evaded: (1) The House vote with the names and votes of the individual members publicly published and (2) the president’s signature. That is James Madison’s precise, 18th-century version of transparency and accountability.
The Slaughter rule has no legal precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today that critiques the Pelosi strategy, the “Slaughter Rule,” that is being considered to pass ObamaCare.
“We’re not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. Under the “reconciliation” process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process”
The constitututional principle being violated here is known as the “nondelegation doctrine.” By saying two contradictory things at the same time, the House would be delegating its power to the Senate and the White House, allowing the latter to pick which meaning they like best.
Congress could use the same approach to allow a line-item veto, by passing a thousand budgets instead of one, and letting the President pick whichever one he likes best. And that would also violate the nondelegation doctrine.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him…
So, if the House votes on two bills at once, the President must approve that vote “before the same shall take effect,” because the vote at least partially requires the Senate’s concurrence. The President cannot pick and choose which part of the House vote to approve, and the House vote cannot have any effect unless the President approves it.
The framers saw all this coming. You can read about it here in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution.