1 They'll learn the meaning of Slaughter in November, if they go through with it.

2 The Slaughter House opens tomorrow... that's when they're going to activate it.

3 I'm in the Slaughter district. Sucks to be me. I called her office and left a message saying I hope she gets booted out of office and I will be donating to the GOP.

4 Nice symmetry in that the same woman who introduced the nation to the horrors of zombie choppers is now gonna be responsible for the chewing up and spitting out of our Constitution.
How do these contemptible fools get elected? Don't answer that.

5 Slaughter Solution. SS for short. Also, love that word "solution". It has a ring.

6

Gabe,

 

If it is unconstitutional, how are they going to do it? And if they pass it what will stop it from taking effect? Law suits?

I don't understand how the government can do this if it is as clearly unconstitutional as you say it is? Isn't there a mechinism to prevent this?

I still don't understand how this is possible.

 

7 BTW... the Slaughter House?  Yeah... Nancy Pelosi, and Louise Slaughter were against it before they were for it.

8 Slaughterhouse 216?

9 If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. If neither is on your side make shit up as you go along.

10 "Sleight of hand."

11 I "deem" my taxes to be paid already. Hey, it's the Slaughter Solution!

12 If it is unconstitutional, how are they going to do it?

Unconstitutional shit goes down all the time, but then it gets repealed. One of our illustrious legislators would have to take the case to the Supreme Court.

13

8 They.Don't.Care.

They just want to pass something, anything. Then they'll parade out some middle-aged couple with their free new health-care to ask why the Fright Wingin' Part of No is challenging their right to live in a court of law.

14

You know, the more I look at this thing, if you kill off enough babies, ration enough care to the elderly, and kick the plug out on enough of the really sick people, OBAMACARE REALLY WILL SOLVE everything!

15 I don't understand how the government can do this if it is as clearly unconstitutional as you say it is? Isn't there a mechinism to prevent this?

Further, from the Powerline boyz:

>>when Democrats, including Louise Slaughter herself, challenged the use of a similar device to raise the debt ceiling, the D.C. Circuit decided that it could not reach the question due to the standards of deference that apply between departments of government. The same might happen here. Nonetheless, a legal challenge, including a petition to the Supreme Court if necessary, represents another obstacle to Obamacare in the event that the House employs the Slaughter solution.

16 The war with the USSR continues. Domestic Campaign.

17

Hey Gabe,

I have a question, if they are approving the senate bill at the same time they are approving the amendments to it aren't they in fact approving an amended senate bill requiring a re vote in the senate on the entire bill therefore opening it up to filibuster?

18 #18, that's what concerns me.  The SCOTUS ruled once before that the self-executing rule wasn't per se unconstitutional when the GOP did it because of a "deference" to the Congress that their "attestation" is good enough.  Why won't they rule that way again?  Sure, this beast is bigger, but size of legislation wasn't the issue to the Court the first time.

19 They.Don't.Care. They just want to pass something, anything.

Yup. The abortion and the prison are just perks.

20 The current machinations taking place in Washington, in clear opposition to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as well as offenses to the intellect, are nothing short of a coup d'etat.  The dems are using every illegal and insane method their pea-brains can think up in order to seize power.

The fact that this insanity is even allowed to continue on - especially as everyone in America knows how sleazy and illegal this all is - just shows where our nation really is.  We have no more law.  We are led by empathy and criminality.

We are Honduras, with our Zelaya having the full backing and support of his own party and the Judiciary (unlike in Honduras, where they all defended their Constitution - even against our criminals, here) and our future looks very, very bleak.

21

Let's say they use the slaughter solution, won't the Senate have to vote on the revised "fixes"? And if that is true, if they offer any ammendments or changes won't it have to be voted on again?

Doesn't the senate have to pass the House Slaughter solution exactly as worded?

22 The court would be faced with two challenges - the State laws proscribing the Federal intrusion into Health Care (VA, so far), and then the procedural suit - to this law out of the box. Can anyone imagine how a truely powerful Speaker like Tip or Majority Leader like LBJ would have used this "procedural" trick?

23

Thanks for that link Gabe, I did want to read that article and not just the first paragraph.

This is another one of those "ironies" about this damnable bill. The senate Bill itself in my opinion is illegal. It invovles new taxes and revenue and yet the only way they can meet the requirement that all bills involving revenue originate in the House was aby another underhanded slight of hand that involved a bill allready passed that dealth with veterans benefits.

They just added all the healthscam mess to that bill. To me that is blatantly unconstituional and I would love to see a Republican challenge them on that as well.

Yes, if this passes it will be up to someone in Congress to seek and injunction to prohibit enforcement and to challenge the consitutionality on both of those scores.

Even more "irony": Clinton v New York cited in the article was the case brought by RINO Rudy to help the Dems challenge the line item veto.

24 Its all smoke and mirrors.

Pelosi doesn't (yet) have the votes to pass this bill, or she already would have held the vote.

Therefore, all this talk of inevitability is just a bluff.  The President delaying his trip?  Bluff.  Pelosi's "we have the votes"?  Bluff.  They know the clock is ticking so they HAVE to (repeat HAVE to) create the impression of inevitability.  Anything else at this point would be a concession of defeat.

In *that* light, the "Slaughter" shenanigan is just another bluff.   At this point it seems clear to careful observers that the House simply CAN not pass the unamended Senate version.  So this is a way of getting around that impression.  Its a way of offering the slightest fig leaf to anyone on the fence, and to convince anyone who rightfully SHOULD be skeptical that the Dems don't have the votes here, that just maybe they do.

Also, frankly, there is no downside to Pelosi or Obama for "passing" this sh#$-sandwich illegal via the Slaughter trick.  For them, its a no-lose situation.


If the law passes, and it survives a Supreme Court challenged, they win.
If the law passes, and it does NOT survive a Supreme Court challenge, they can blame it on the "Conservative" court.   "We tried, but the damn partisan court struck this down".  Kind of like blaming the Supreme Court for the Bush victory over Al Gore.
 If the law doesn't pass, nobody can legitimately accuse them of not trying every last possible trick/procedure to get it done.

25 25

Let's say they use the slaughter solution, won't the Senate have to vote on the revised "fixes"? And if that is true, if they offer any ammendments or changes won't it have to be voted on again?

Doesn't the senate have to pass the House Slaughter solution exactly as worded?

The Senate has to pass the reconciliation bill, yes.  And yes, if they makes any changes, it has to go back to the House for another vote.

But the Slaughter House implements the original Senate bill (the Senate doesn't vote on it, it's part of the House rules for debate)--making it law immediately, before the reconciliation bill even gets to the Senate.  So while it may take a few weeks for the Senate to deal with the reconciliation bill, Obamacare will go into effect this weekend via the Slaughter House.

26 #7

The most important difference between a voice vote and the Slaughter chicanery is that NOBODY OBJECTS to a voice vote.  Its never used to pass controversial legislation, and to the contrary, its only used to pass legislation that EVERYONE (even opponents) concede will easily pass.

If even one person objects to a voice vote, I'd think the House is obligated to call a real one, and in this case, I think you would have MASSIVE objection to a voice vote on Obamacare.

27

This seems really simply.  If you can only reconcile laws, and a bill isn't a law until the President signs it, a 3rd grader should be able to point out to Pelosi why you can't reconcile and vote on it at the same time.

How come no one can handle this?

28 How is it unconstitutional?  Allow Levin put us on some f''in knowledge. http://bit.ly/aFgRBi

29 why would the Senate want to change their own bill via reconciliation?  i mean, why would they have passed it if they wanted to change it?  Ben Nelson wants to un-do the cornhusker bailout, but he is the only one.  Landrieu keeps her money.

30 So for Day 7 of the Final March for Reform,


I'm serious. March? Slaughter? Final? Solution? What the fuck is going on?

31 Can someone knowledgeable about past Republican self-executing measures compare and contrast with what is mentioned here?

32 35 So for Day 7 of the Final March for Reform,


I'm serious. March? Slaughter? Final? Solution? What the fuck is going on?

Posted by: The Mega Independent at March 16, 2010 10:18 AM (DI+vn)

The Juice will be eliminate!

33 Let's also not overlook the fact that the bill itself is blatantly unconstitutional because regulating and nationalizing healthcare is NOT an enumerated power of congress or the federal government. 

34 #29

If the Slaughter amended bill passes, its still not law until the President signs the bill.
In order for him to sign a bill into law the House and Senate versions have to be identical.
That leads to a problem.
If the House and Senate versions aren't identical, it can't be signed by the President (or even if so, it "shouldn't" be law).  
Presumeably, what will happen is that Obama will sign the original Senate version into law, leaving the Slaughter amendment "sidecar" to be worked on in reconciliation.
Whether or not this trick would be legal is debatable. . .I think many if not most legal observers believe it would be unconsitutional to sign into law a bill that wasn't voted on in the Senate.
Unfortunately, we all know reconciliation here won't work, but that's really irrelevant, so long as Pelosi and Obama have SOMETHING they can wave around as law. 
 
Now, all that said, the House members have to know what I just posted.  If they sign onto any Slaughter chicanery, they are for all practical purposes STILL VOTING TO MAKE THE SENATE VERSION law without any guarantee that ANYTHING will be fixed in the Senate.    So if they weren't inclined to vote on the Senate version before, this Slaughter "fix" shouldn't really fix anything at all.    Again, its just a trick (see my post on it above) to provide a little fig leaf for anyone on the fence.

35 32

This seems really simply.  If you can only reconcile laws, and a bill isn't a law until the President signs it, a 3rd grader should be able to point out to Pelosi why you can't reconcile and vote on it at the same time.

How come no one can handle this?

Posted by: Jai at March 16, 2010 10:17 AM (8K2ZC)

That's why they're doing the Slaughter House.  The House won't vote for the Senate bill without changes, and they can't reconcile without a law.  So, they're going to "deem" the Senate bill as having already passed, and it will be signed by Obama this weekend in the Rose Garden.  Reconciliation bill will then be pushed to the Senate and worked on in the following weeks.  But Obamacare will already be into law absorbing taxes and rationing health care.

36 Can someone knowledgeable about past Republican self-executing measures compare and contrast with what is mentioned here?

---------------------------------------------
“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (”DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------

That and the fact that it was apparently an amendment to raise the debt ceiling, which is something Congress does regularly, as opposed to a bill nationalizing 1/6th blah blah blah blah.....

37 May they all burn. Every one of them.

38 The Dems are the Imperial Japanese Fleet and the USA is Pearl Harbor.

39 39 #29

If the Slaughter amended bill passes, its still not law until the President signs the bill.
In order for him to sign a bill into law the House and Senate versions have to be identical.

Posted by: looking closely at March 16, 2010 10:28 AM (YpVHs)

I think you're confused on what the Slaughter House does.  It does not amend the bill.

The Slaughter House is a rule that is put into the Rules of Debate for the Reconciliation Bill.  That rule is a self-executing rule, wherein when they vote to approve the Rules of Debate (usually by unanimous consent) it states that the original Senate bill is agreed to and passed the House--thereby making it available for the President to sign and law immediately.

The Reconciliation bill, with all the changes to the Senate bill that the House wants, is entirely separate and is not involved with the Slaughter House.

They're doing the Slaughter House because the House Progressives will NOT vote for the Senate bill without their changes, and they cannot make changes until they have a law to reconcile.  So, they're passing the Senate bill without anyone voting on it so they can reconcile it with their changes.

40 if anyone tries to ripoff my book title, I'm suing!  Don't try me!

41

Here's Article I, Section 7 of the constitutuion:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

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, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

42 #39
Sorry, typo there.  Meant to say that I think most legal observers would agree that its unconstitutional for the President to sign into law a bill that wasn't voted on by the HOUSE (and Senate).

The Slaughter process can't bypass this Constitutional stipulation.

Where as a voice vote is still a type of legal vote, merely "deeming" a bill passed doesn't make it passed.   It still has to be subject to a House vote.

Now, perhaps the House CAN re-arrange its rules to say that in effect a vote for the Slaughter amendment is ALSO a vote for the original Senate bill.    That's convoluted, but I suppose its not illegal, and my impression is that this is in effect what the Dems are trying to do here.

In other words, they're trying to game the vote to let House members LOOK like they're voting for a "reasonable" amended bill, even though the EFFECT of their vote is to pass the objectionable Senate version exactly as written immediately into law, with absolutely no assurances whatever that ANYTHING will be fixed or changed down the line.

The question now is whether or not this questionably legal "fix" is going to convince any House members on the fence.  I have my doubts.

43 The Mega Independent: What happened with the Public Citizen suit?

44 Sock you!

45 #40 The Slaughter House is a rule that is put into the Rules of Debate for the Reconciliation Bill.  That rule is a self-executing rule, wherein when they vote to approve the Rules of Debate (usually by unanimous consent) it states that the original Senate bill is agreed to and passed the House--thereby making it available for the President to sign and law immediately.
======
Are the rules of debate subject to an ordinary House vote?

If so, then any House member voting to approve the rules of debate is effectively voting for the Senate bill, correct?

 

46 The Slaughter solution doesn't solve the biggest problem - the lack of trust between the Dims in the lower chamber and the upper. Whether they have one vote on the Senate bill and the fix; or two votes is immaterial -- the Senate will still have to vote on the "fix". If the fix is thru a limited reconciliation bill or a full featured bill - neither option can be signed until after the President signs the Senate bill.

47 50 
Are the rules of debate subject to an ordinary House vote?

If so, then any House member voting to approve the rules of debate is effectively voting for the Senate bill, correct?

Posted by: looking closely at March 16, 2010 10:45 AM (YpVHs)

Yep, which is why people are looking at Pelosi like she's nuts.  The House has to vote on the rules, and if the Slaughter House is in the rules, they're basically voting on the Senate bill.  But not directly.  That somehow makes Pelosi think it gives her people enough cover to say, "I didn't vote for that bill."

48 Yep, which is why people are looking at Pelosi like she's nuts.  The House has to vote on the rules, and if the Slaughter House is in the rules, they're basically voting on the Senate bill.  But not directly.  That somehow makes Pelosi think it gives her people enough cover to say, "I didn't vote for that bill."

Posted by: enoxo at March 16, 2010 10:49 AM (u43Tp)

Actually, I take that back.  I just looked it up.  The Rules of Debate are not open for a regular House vote.  Only the House Rules Committee votes on the Rules of Debate.

49 The Rules of Debate are not open for a regular House vote.  Only the House Rules Committee votes on the Rules of Debate.

So under the Slaughter Solution, the House Rules Committee basically "deems" the Senate bill passed?

Are you kidding? Our entire health care system get overhauled (destroyed) on the say so of a fucking rules committee?

50 Paul Ryan argues that Pelosi and her chairs have powers to ram through the Senate Bill without actually voting for it.  He's not a lawyer, but he's been on the Hill for as long as Pelosi both as an aide and now as a Congressman.  He's probably aware of every procedural move that can be made.

51 @53 Whoa, cowboy. If you are right, that clears up a lot. Hell, why couldn't the Rules Committee also include literally any Senate bill that hasn't passed the House and deem it approved by House vote? This wold be an arrogation and disenfranchisement of the entire House's voting rights in favor of the will of the Rules Committee. Hello Enabling Act of 1933.

52 So under the Slaughter Solution, the House Rules Committee basically "deems" the Senate bill passed?

Are you kidding? Our entire health care system get overhauled (destroyed) on the say so of a fucking rules committee?

Posted by: Warden at March 16, 2010 10:59 AM (TIGTh

Yep!  Isn't it wonderful?

"Before legislation reaches the floor of the House, the Rules Committee normally passes a rule to govern debate on that measure."

The Slaughter House will be part of the Rules of Debate for the Reconciliation bill.  And the Rules Committee meets tomorrow.

53 "deem and pass" is how Ezra Klein describes the strategy.

Shockingly, he doesn't see any problem with that strategy.

54

So it only becomes unconstitutional if BHO signs it? 

Otherwise it's a different bill, pending a senate vote?

55 I propose renaming the House Rules Committee to "La Comité Du Salut Publique." Ironic that what Granny Rictus proposes turns the Rules Committee into something out of the French Revolution's worst excesses, and that word "salut" is closely related to "health"... Madame Nancy Robespierre.

56 Bring you daughter to the slaughter.

57 The Rule still has to pass on a majority vote of the body so its not just up to the committee to make a law.

Posted by: toby928 at March 16, 2010 11:14 AM (PD1tk)

I'm getting conflicting reports on this.  Some say it's the Committee that passes the rules entirely, and others are saying that all rules of debate have to pass the House entirely.

We'll find out on Wednesday.

58 Posted by: wtfci at March 16, 2010 10:45 AM (+zo63)

From the same article:

-------------------------------
The District Court held that Public Citizen’s bicameralism claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892). See Public Citizen v. Clerk, U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 451 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2006). In that case, the Court held that the judiciary must treat the attestations of “the two houses, through their presiding officers” as “conclusive evidence that [a bill] was passed by Congress.” Marshall Field, 143 U.S. 672-73. Under Marshall Field, a bill signed by the leaders of the House and Senate – an attested “enrolled bill” – establishes that Congress passed the text included therein “according to the forms of the Constitution,” and it “should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.”
-------------------------------

Which is to say it failed.

59 @61 Okay, that is what I originally thought. Nevertheless, this ploy is so transparent, how can it fool anyone? It's like: A: Buy this rotten sardine for ten bucks and this nice steak for one dollar. B: No, I just want the steak for one. A: Tell you what, I'll sell you the steak for one if you'll buy the sardine for ten. B: No. A: A package deal, fella. I'll sell you both the steak and sardine for one price. Just eleven bucks, and you can throw out the sardine. B: B: A: I'm running for Congress too.

60 Are you kidding? Our entire health care system get overhauled (destroyed) on the say so of a fucking rules committee?

Pelosi and others have said that Americans don't really care about this insider procedural stuff, and they don't care how the bill is passed, as long as it's (not) passed. I think that is actually true.

61 We'll get back to you next month!

62 remember this?:  "Conservatives Mock Slaughter's Denture Story"

63
They define the rule by majority vote in the committee, but to have it enacted requires a majority vote of the House, hence the current orgy of vote-buying.

Posted by: toby928 at March 16, 2010 11:24 AM (PD1tk)

Makes sense.  So it goes back to my original thought... how Pelosi even thinks this offers some kind of fig leaf of protection for Democrats to say "I didn't vote for it!" when they vote for it indirectly.

64 Makes sense.  So it goes back to my original thought... how Pelosi even thinks this offers some kind of fig leaf of protection for Democrats to say "I didn't vote for it!" when they vote for it indirectly.

I take it you don't like the current fig leaf where the Speaker admits she doesn't even know what is in the bill until they pass it.

65 Maybe at the signing Obama can hand out dentures to everyone,

66 "Makes sense.  So it goes back to my original thought... how Pelosi even thinks this offers some kind of fig leaf of protection for Democrats to say "I didn't vote for it!" when they vote for it indirectly." Worse than that. The proposition is simply "Vote yes on this rule for debate and you automatically approve the existing Senate bill as is." There is no cover here and Scrunty McBotox doesn't want you to talk about process because it is literally the vote itself. And voting is so inconvenient. Scumsack.

67 Wow, Drudge's top two stories (upper-left and red headline) are hot.

68 House GOP are forcing a vote on the Slaughter House:, via. Michelle Malkin.

"House Republican leaders will announce this morning a plan to force a vote this week on a resolution that would require the Senate health care bill to be brought to an actual up-or-down vote. The likely text of the measure is below. If passed by the House, the resolution would prohibit Speaker Pelosi from implementing the “Slaughter Solution,” the scheme by which House Democratic leaders are seeking to “deem” the Senate bill as passed without an actual vote in the House. More details to come"

69 we are no longer a Nation ruled by Law we have become a Nation ruled by Men, everything that is going on right now with the healthcare bill, and this article's tone of indifference to corruption in the form of unethical dealmaking are proof.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
the falcon cannnot hear the falconer,
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere
the ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity"   there can be no honesty when honest ppl are laughed at, ridiculed and crushed beneath the wheels of leviathan.

there can be no courage when ppl of courage are ripped to pieces by the harpies of deceit and manipulation.

night is day and black is white... my heart is broken, I weep quietly, inwardly for to show my true heart is to invite it's destruction.   there is no place for courage, there is no place for honesty, there is no place for freedom.

where can a man stand on his own?

where can a person be allowed to suffer the consequences of their actions?

where can anyone go to be free of the soul-sucking, mind-numbing, relentless, inevitable leviathan of the "common good"?

70

please disregard the first paragraph of my first post, it was meant for a different article on another blog.

the rest is meant and heartfelt.

71 You have nothing to fear from an Obama Administration!

72 "Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform." That's increasingly a feature, not bug. Also, another example of Brits doing the journalism American presstitutes won't do.

73 If they go through with it the way they plan, I wouldn't be surpised if someone gets a bullet in the head.

74 Birth Tourism

You have to be joking?

Birth tourism in US on the rise for Turkish parents

With more Turkish parents wanting their child to be born in the US, tourism companies are starting to offer ‘birth tourism’ packages to US cities. Many women say giving birth in the US has benefits including cheaper education and fewer visa worries. Some Americans, however, want to restrict the practice, citing fears of illegal migration.

75 80 If they go through with it the way they plan, I wouldn't be surpised if someone gets a bullet in the head.

Posted by: Ken at March 16, 2010 11:52 AM (4JpPD)

You probably should make that plural.

76 House GOP are forcing a vote

Pardon my ignorance, but how can they do that? Wouldn't Pelosi have to put it on the agenda?

77 Birth Tourism

You have to be joking?

Not at all. Arabs do it, too. I knew quite a few who did.

78 I knew quite a few who did.

to add to my post, they tried to time their pregnancies accordingly.

79 Volokh Conspiracy has had some interesting comments sections going on about this very thing for a few days.  The amount of interpretationalizing (I just made that up) going on about this over there is astounding.

80 Not at all. Arabs do it, too. I knew quite a few who did.

Posted by: arhooley at March 16, 2010 12:05 PM (6NMRE)

I don't think this was the intention of those who wrote the constitution.

81

The amount of interpretationalizing (I just made that up) going on about this over there is astounding.

I have always said this crap of "anchor baby" was a bad interpretation by the idiots in the immigration service.  The Supremes have NEVER ruled on the "anchor baby" issue contrary to the myth by the idiots that it has.

BTW their "favorite" reference is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That case ruled on LEGAL chineese immigrants that were here as permanent residents. Not illegals or vacationers.

The key words in the 14th amendment are: " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That was actually placed in there to exclude foreignors who were in the country temporarely.

 

82

@88

 

Sorry, I was talking about the Slaughter thingie.

83

Both houses must vote for the bill and must pass before the president can sign it into law. Then the law must be sent to the Senate to be reconciled or the terd remains the same. Even lowly N. Dakota can haul this Slaughter Shit into court.

 The Slaughter crap is anarchy or better still- Martial law.

84 "If even one person objects to a voice vote, I'd think the House is obligated to call a real one, and in this case, I think you would have MASSIVE objection to a voice vote on Obamacare." Actually, it's in the Constitution what threshold you need to force a recorded vote (roll call in the Senate, electronic in the House). You need one-fifth of those present. I think that would easily be met.

85 Here's why it can't possibly be constitutional (assuming I am understanding correctly):

1) Senate has already passed Bill A, which the House hates.
2) House will pass Bill B which amends Bill A and "deem" Bill A passed.
3) Obama will sign Bill A into law.
4) The Senate will then use reconciliation rules to modify Bill A with amendments in Bill B.

In step number 3, Obama will be signing into law a Bill that did not and could not pass a vote in the house.

86

chi hair straightener chi hair dryer chi flat iron chi hair straighteners,we have wholesale at best price and free shipping.Welcome to wholesale cheap chi hair straighteners at our shop.Our online shop sales GHD range of GHD Hair Straighteners products. If you are buying GHD Straighteners and Ghd flat iron online through the internet, then we will give you more discounts.In addition, free postage. Shop for high quality wholesale GHD hair straighteners and ghd MK4 products on DHgate and get worldwide delivery. Buy Chinese cheap GHD hair straighteners wholesale producted from China ghd wholesale supplies.

87 laptop battery
laptop ac adapter
hermes handbag

88

laptop battery
laptop ac adapter
hermes handbag

89

top quality cheap ray bans on the cheap ray ban sunglasses mall, there are new styles ray bans on sale, just to do ray ban sunglasses sale there.