Rep. Van Hollen Admits Dems Will Use Unconstitutional "Slaughter Rule" to Ram Through Obamacare (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, March 14, 2010, 9:14 AM
THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING–
Democratic leader Rep. Chris Van Hollen admitted today on FOX News Sunday that democrats will use the unconstitutional “Slaughter Rule” to ram their pro-abortion nationalized health care bill through Congress. Democrats announced this tactic last week. They will pass the bill without voting on it. They will take over one-sixth of the US economy without even voting on it.
The statists created this rule to help them ram health care through Congress without having to vote on it.
Doug Ross explained:
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
Michelle Malkin has more on this unprecedented Congressional power grab.
Contact list – Blue Dog Democrats
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 74 Comments
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
Oz hull!
Richard Bagg commented:
If the Democrats want Washington DC burned to the ground, again… Then go ahead and Slaughter the bill… You bastards!
Texmom commented:
Won’t this actually make it easier to overturn, taking it to the SCOTUS as unconstitutional?
Aitch748 commented:
If the House uses the Slaughter maneuver to ram this thing through, then what in hell do we even HAVE a House for in the first place? The House is willingly, even eagerly, shutting itself out of the legislative process! That means we voters are being shut out of the process even more firmly than before!!!
If this keeps up, we’ll eventually have to stage a coup to get a change in leadership in DC. I am SO ready to see DC burn. As far as I am concerned, this Slaughter sneakiness makes the current regime illegitimate, just as if it were some foreign country that invaded DC and was telling the rest of us that the Constitution was now null and void. It makes me wonder if they’ll even look for a way to cheat us in November, and come up with a way to not have to honor the results of the election. Can the federal government really hope to run the country if large percentages of the citizenry have begun to think of the government as illegitimate usurpers of their freedoms?
Atlanta Media Guy commented:
Hugh Hewitt said it would be difficult to take it to SCOTUS. I would love to hear a constitutional lawyer take a stab how this can be taken to SCOTUS.
The protest this week needs to be huge and LOUD! Bring your pitch forks people it’s time we show these Dem Asshats that the constitution, they are crapping on, will eventually take them down. I’m so angry right now.
The media I work for is ignoring this story and framing it through their Democratic Utopian glasses that are the size of coke bottles. Make some noise folks it’s time we take these people out!
LC commented:
Government isn’t illegitimate, the Democrat leadership is.
Britny commented:
Ramming it is going to hurt them more than it hurts us.
Sickofobama commented:
Mark Levin has said if they go about this Unconstitutional route he and other Constitutional lawyers will head straight to the court.
Our only saving grace perhaps?
God bless and save this country!
Karen commented:
I think Slaughtercare has a nice ring to it.
CatB commented:
TexMom–my exact thoughts.
Go ahead, Congress, have your little power play; make it that much easier for the courts to overturn your arrogant attempt to nullify our constitutional government!
And BTW, not a good idea to piss off 150 million legally armed citizens.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Just sayin’.
Andrew commented:
Perhaps our only saving grace is Justice Kennedy.
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
“The legislature, like the executive, has ceased, save indirectly, to be even the creature of the people: it is the creature, in the main, of pressure groups, and most of them, it must be manifest, are of dubious wisdom and even more dubious honesty. Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle – a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”
H.L. Mencken writing in the American Mercury, May 1930
Dell commented:
They’ll do just about anything and everything, including to “deem the bill as passed”.
Once they do, I’ll just “deem my federal taxes as paid”.
kansas commented:
Van Holling sure got the bulk of the time and kiss ass questions from Wallace, not to mention constantly putting hands on and appearing to block Cantor. And to have to watch Gibbs on Fox was downright depressing. Wasn’t Gibbs saying not so long ago how Fox was not news. Since his sorry ass was on, I’m starting to believe that.
David Johnson commented:
Either solution (killing the bill or sneaking it through in such an underhanded way) would be a win-win for both the country and the conservative cause. If the socialists do either, they are doomed for a long time to come. Bring it!
ms commented:
Mark Levin who is a constitutional lawyer talked about this on his radio show.
http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodloc.andomedia.com%2FdloadTrack.mp3%3Fprm%3D2069xhttp%3A%2F%2Fpodfuse-dl.andomedia.com%2F800185%2Fpodfuse-origin.andomedia.com%2Fcitadel_origin%2Fpods%2Fmarklevin%2FLevin03122010.mp3
StrangernFiction commented:
Using the Slaughter Rule to slaughter the Constitution. Every day it just gets MORE BIZARRE.
averagemelon commented:
The day is coming fast when Americans will descend on Washington with handcuffs. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION TO COMPLETELY IGNORE IT. This is OUR country and you are REPRESENTATIVES. This “Slaughter Rule” is the proverbial line in the sand and if the Democrats cross it, we WILL rid our Whitehouse and Congress of all vermin regardless of banner. Period.
sandy commented:
So the Big Bad Wolf strikes again. Still not paying attention — So says he I will have to huff and puff and blow your house down. It didn’t work when they offered the American people the priviledge of Healthcare. So they attacked anyone and everyone opposed to this boondoggle. Insurance Companies are the enemy, The Republican Party is the enemy and now even the American people are the enemy.
Van Hollen look in the mirror and see who the real enemy is. Now you’re telling the Democrats to keep quiet about their votes on this load of garbage. Because even most of them don’t want it. 39 cents of every dollar spent on Healthcare will have to be borrowed (says the CBO) at a time when we need JOBS.
Here’s what Van Hollen is worred about
Thirty-four House Democrats are either firm no votes or leaning no, according to The Hill’s whip list. Dozens more are undecided.
The list of Democratic members who haven’t committed ranges widely, from liberal Reps. Michael Capuano (Mass.) and Anthony Weiner (N.Y.) to centrist Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Chris Carney (Pa.).
Two committee chairmen — Reps. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) — say they are firm nos and three others, Reps. John Spratt (D-S.C.), Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), are undecided.
If every House member votes and all Republicans reject the bill as expected, Pelosi can only afford 37 Democratic defections.
By the way, if you tell Dems to stay quiet about their votes — why are you on TV bragging about passing this in an Unconstitutional way. Oh yeah the threats have to be bigger now. So huff and puff and threaten to blow up the Democrats hold on the House — yeah that’ll get support.
sandy commented:
Karen — I agree. Slaughtercare says it all.
Opus #6 commented:
Karen, Slaughtercare indeed, lol!
The Dems want to slaughter the Constitution. Well there are a lot of Americans who have taken and reaffirm their oath to protect and defend that document. And others with no oath, who believe just and strongly in it and are willing to protect it.
Go ahead. Make. Our. Day.
Sojourner commented:
…Van Hollen be damned.
If the House of Representatives acquiesces to the health care bill passed by the US Senate, they do so in violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.
Article 1, Sec. 7 states:
“All bills that call for the raising of Revenues MUST originate in the House of Representatives.”
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section5
The legislative canard that each House of Congress can determine its own rules sidesteps the very plain language of the Constitution, itself.
Although the House of Representatives has passed its own health care bill, that House bill is NOT what it is going to be acted upon. Rather, the House will be acting on the health care bill that ORIGINATED in the Senate. It will be as if the House version does not and never did exist.
In absence of some conference committee agreement or other procedure that would amend the House Bill and then be put to a vote of both House and Senate, any action in the House of Representatives that would allow the Senate bill to become Law, is clearly unconstitutional.
Even the dumbest of ‘Constitutional law professors’ would get this…I would think this issue would be widely discussed and debated by now. Yet, I’ve heard or seen little or no analysis from any media. Am I missing something here?
Charles D commented:
The “Slaughter Rule”? Wasn’t it the “Nuclear Option”? Or did you realize that reconciliation was a technique used over and over again by Republicans to pass important legislation over Democratic objections? Or did you decide that the standard plan for passing bills in Congress is unconstitutional? If both houses pass the same bill, then it goes to the President’s desk. It’s only unconstitutional when you don’t like the bill. If it were a bill outlawing flag burning or gay marriage you would be urging the Congress to use whatever tricks they could to pass it.
Doesn’t the hypocrisy of the so-called conservative spin get to you sometimes? I guess not, since you’d first have to think about what you’re hearing instead of just accepting it as gospel.
Sojourner commented:
#26..
respectfully, you miss the point. the point is that the Bill that’s being hotly discussed right now ORIGINATED in the SENATE and NOT in the HOUSE.That is THE ISSUE. Nuclear option, reconciliation, whatever, are irrelevant.
katy commented:
No Charles.
it’s you who need to think about what you’re hearing and for God’s sake pay attention. The Slaughter rule has never been used. Never. It’s a new proposal that would not…NOT require a vote. The congress would simple “deem” the bill passed without a vote. This would destroy our current form of representative government. If leaders simply deem a proposal into law, we are no longer a republic but a dictatorship…stemming from the word dictate. You get that much don’t you Charles?
Dell commented:
Charles D
March 14th, 2010 | 11:06 am | #26
I think you need to do a tad more research, my friend. The “Slaughter Rule” isn’t even remotely connected to reconciliation, AKA the “nuclear option”, in any way, shape or form. The use of the reconciliation process – while not uncommon – has been utilized a few times in recent history, but never “over and over again” as you stated.
The “Slaughter Rule” was just created for this legislation and has never been used.
And your ad hominem attack is duly noted as typical of left-wing trolls who really don’t have any other argument.
Now go peddle your Sunday papers.
Sue commented:
Democrats have lost their collective minds if they think the American people will remain apathetic to this.
Desperation stinks, Dems. It stinks to the high heavens, literally. God doesn’t take kindly to conniving, back-stabbing, forked-tongued liars. Neither do the American people.
Part of me says, just try this. Make my day and try it, you pack of liars.
Taxi Dude commented:
This current group of Dem’s just don’t care about the Constitution and the price paid by previous generations to uphold it…2010 can’t come soon enough.
Peggy commented:
Any readers in the STL Metro East, please call pro-life Dem Jerry Costello at any of his offices.
Thanks.
NRO had a memo from Van Hollen in which he urged members NOT to talk about “process.” Why? B/c it’s so clearly shady, unethical and unconstitutional.
St. Michael pray for us.
Charles D commented:
I see now, after a bit more research, what you are all upset about. It’s not the “attack on the Constitution”, something Republicans are just as bad at doing as Democrats, it’s the fact that Rep. Slaughter wants to prevent the anti-choice people from inserting their unconstitutional amendment into the bill. It’s still hypocritical of you to attack this move as unconstitutional while remaining silent for 8 years while the Bush-Cheney regime walked roughshod over our rights.
Frankly, most of us on the left think this bill is a travesty that will make a bad health care system worse. The Democratic “leadership” (I use that term very loosely) is pushing to pass anything simply to avoid the appearance that Obama and they have failed. They have failed already. You will be able to tell who the real leftists are in the House when they finally have a vote on this bill and a handful of non-conservative, pro-choice Congresspersons vote against it. When they pass this bill, by whatever hook or crook, they will have to live with the results: a massive new tax on ordinary Americans transferred directly to private health insurance companies in return for worthless coverage. You think voters are angry now, just wait!
Your mistake is that you see Obama, Pelosi and Reid and think they are left-wingers or socialists and you think they represent a big constituency. They don’t. They are liars just like the Republican leaders and like their brethren on the other side of the aisle, they are focused on getting re-elected and maintaining power and very little else.
The Democrats are stuck with a constituency that wants them to enact progressive legislation and funding sources that insist that they don’t. Republicans have it a lot better. Their constituency has been almost completely co-opted by their funding sources and regularly protests and votes against their own best interests.
You guys will be back in power soon and you can revel in the lousy education, unaffordable health care, and endless war your children will enjoy as they work in dead-end jobs for low pay while the Republican Party funders laugh all the way to their foreign bank.
Brenda commented:
Any Democrats who vote for Slaughtercare thinking that the American people will be fooled are only fooling themselves. The Dems are all partying aboard the Titanic and this healthcare bill is the iceberg. Their own pollsters are warning them, but no one is listening.
Slappy commented:
Charles D
March 14th, 2010 | 11:06 am | #26
The “Slaughter Rule”? Wasn’t it the “Nuclear Option”? Or did you realize that reconciliation was a technique used over and over again by Republicans to pass important legislation over Democratic objections? Or did you decide that the standard plan for passing bills in Congress is unconstitutional? If both houses pass the same bill, then it goes to the President’s desk. It’s only unconstitutional when you don’t like the bill. If it were a bill outlawing flag burning or gay marriage you would be urging the Congress to use whatever tricks they could to pass it.
Doesn’t the hypocrisy of the so-called conservative spin get to you sometimes? I guess not, since you’d first have to think about what you’re hearing instead of just accepting it as gospel.
Sure, Charles. I like how you resorted to the Left’s favorite criticisms of conservatives regardless of the issue or circumstances — i.e., we’re all hypocrites and stupid. You and the rest of the Left should look in the mirror considering the hypocritical mental midgets leading your side right now: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, etc.
Keep rationalizing the ridiculous behavior of Democrats against the will of the American people and keep trying to defend these attempts by making up the facts about the unprecedented legislative move being considered by House Democrats. If they actually pull this off and pass the bill with the “Slaughter Rule” (and it is not overturned by the Supreme Court), I am sure you will be fine with the Republicans returning the favor when they regain the majority by using the same tactic to pass bills not supported by you and/or your ideological brethren (e.g., privatizing Social Security, lowering the minimum wage, eliminating the Department of Education, etc.). Like many projectionists on the Left, I can only imagine the bitching and moaning on the Left if this occurred. Of course, the Left would state that this legislative tactic has never been used before and was being used against the will of the American people. Both you and I know that most of the Left would do this since many on the Left hypocritically think that they’re above their own criticisms. Bottom line: no bill should be passed this way now or in the future, but especially one of this size with these far-reaching implications for all Americans.
Instead of rationalizing this ridiculous behavior by the Democrats, why don’t you explain to use why you’re fine with Obama lying about not signing a bill that added to the deficit or didn’t receive 60% passage in both the House and Senate? C’mon, I would love to hear your defense of these bold-faced lies by the inexperienced, in-over-his-head man-child. You’ve conveniently left these criticisms out of your rants in this thread, though you’re trying to maintain some credibility by tossing out generalizations about Democrats supposedly being as bad as Republicans. I’m not buying your attempt at sounding like an equal opportunity basher in your latest post in this thread considering your first post in this thread. It looks to me like you’re trying to blunt some of the heat that you’ve taken since your first post here since you have no substantive response to what others have written.
Sojourner commented:
Now, the why of Van Hollen’s sounding to his lackeys to retreat to the bat cave comes shining thru.. this will not end well..the Dems would be wise to listen to the American people now.
elisa commented:
I feel compelled to state the obvious:
If the bill is “deemed” passed without being voted on by my representative in the House, and the bill taxes me in any way…”taxation without representation.”
And that original battle cry was over a 3% tax!
pm commented:
Kansas, #14, is right.
I was so disgusted with Chris Wallace this morning, I even tried, on a replay, to gauge the amount of time given CVH versus Cantor (who was a failure in the time he was allowed). It was something like 6-8mins. vs. 1-1/2 min.
On top of that, citizens couldn’t have come away with an understanding of what an outrage this Slaughter business is; and instead were fed the well-rehearsed lines of both Gibbs and CWH.
Absolute disaster on such an important weekend. Thanks a bunch, Chris Wallace. I remember saying I doubted I’d ever watch his show again after that softball interview of BO. Wish I’d followed my better instincts.
He’s nothing like his dad, except maybe his political leanings.
Slappy commented:
Charles D
March 14th, 2010 | 12:19 pm | #35
I see now, after a bit more research, what you are all upset about. It’s not the “attack on the Constitution”, something Republicans are just as bad at doing as Democrats, it’s the fact that Rep. Slaughter wants to prevent the anti-choice people from inserting their unconstitutional amendment into the bill. It’s still hypocritical of you to attack this move as unconstitutional while remaining silent for 8 years while the Bush-Cheney regime walked roughshod over our rights.
Is this an attempt to see how many lies and half-truths you can include in one paragraph?
“Something Republicans are just as bad at doing as Democrats”? Provide specifics. I have plenty of criticisms of Republicans, especially on the spending side and the growth of the government while they were in power, but I don’t recall so-called “attacks on the Constitution” from the GOP. Or is this just another of the unsupported generalizations you like to toss out so you have something to say in response to others here?
“It’s the fact that Rep. Slaughter wants to prevent the anti-choice people from inserting their unconstitutional amendment into the bill”? So now taxpayers have to pay for abortions or it’s unconstitutional? Is that what you’re saying? Anti-choice people? Considering the Democrats want to prevent the American people from having choices in so many areas (e.g, health care plans, firearm ownership, Social Security contributions, etc.), I have to chuckle at this attempt at projection.
“Remaining silent for 8 years while the Bush-Cheney regime walked roughshod over our rights”? Provide specifics, especially since Bush-Cheney national security policies (which is what I believe you are referring to) were vetted multiple times through the federal court system. I would also like to know which of your rights were trampled on. BTW, other than his failed attempt at closing Gitmo, good luck coming up with any substantive policy in the area of national security that the Obama administration has changed since taking office, even though the man-child bashed those same policies to win his party’s nomination and the 2008 election.
pm commented:
sorry, that should be CVH the second time…
Terrye commented:
Charles,
The interesting thing is that you are not upset, you could care less what these jokers just so long as you get what you want.
No, the Republicans never used the Slaughter Rule. And no, the Republicans never used Reconciliation to pass a bill they could not pass any other way. For instance, when it came to welfare reform, there were more than 70 votes in support of the bill. When it came to Medicare Part D, they had 70 votes for cloture. The Republicans never used a measure just to sneak something past that did not have majority bi partisan support.
Richard Romano commented:
Charles D
March 14th, 2010 | 12:19 pm | #35
I see now, after a bit more research, what you are all upset about. It’s not the “attack on the Constitution”, something Republicans are just as bad at doing as Democrats, it’s the fact that Rep. Slaughter wants to prevent the anti-choice people from inserting their unconstitutional amendment into the bill. It’s still hypocritical of you to attack this move as unconstitutional while remaining silent for 8 years while the Bush-Cheney regime walked roughshod over our rights.
You must mean the Patriot Act, the very act that was quietly extended by the Democrats:
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/03/02/it-was-no-patriots%E2%80%99-act
Bush sure ran roughshod over our rights. It was so bad that Obama and Co. extended it for another year, and with no restrictions either, i.e., privacy protections.
I just love how these left wing ideologues toss out these obfuscations and falsehoods — it really is a form of a food fight: splatter as much as you can; who cares about the clean-up.
kansas commented:
Slaughter just made up the rule. How could anyone have used it?
Slappy commented:
kansas
March 14th, 2010 | 1:38 pm | #47
Slaughter just made up the rule. How could anyone have used it?
I think that’s the point, though Democrats are acting like similar legislative tactics have been used previously, including by the GOP. No one has ever considered using such a rule previously because it is obviously meant to undermine not only congressional rules and the consent of the governed but also the Constitution. Thus, those pretending that this was ever used previously by the GOP are being intellectually dishonest and are trying to ignore the complete power grab by Obama & Co. that’s going on here, which is requiring Obama to completely destroy whatever credibility he had by him simply ignoring his previous comments and standards (e.g., health care bill must pass with 60% in the Senate and House, must be deficit neutral, etc.).
pm commented:
#42 Slappy to Charles: “Is this an attempt to see how many lies and half-truths you can include in one paragraph?”
Not unlike any other Dem who opens his mouth to see how many he can include in one sentence.
P Jason commented:
Everyone writing here in opposition to this unconstitutional maneuver needs to be writing his or her congressperson (especially Dems who are undecided or voted no previously), and telling all friends to do the same. They need to know that someone knows what is going on. The worst part of this is that if they can get away with it, they will get increasingly more brazen until they figure out a way to win in the fall. They have no other identity and care nothing about the people or the Constitution. They have to be met with an even more powerful countervailing force.
Cliff commented:
“Let’s see. We can’t use reconciliation to PASS legislation for it’s only used to adjust EXISTING legislation. Hmmm? Let’s make a rule that says we passed legislation when we never did. THEN we can use reconciliation. We’ll just say Republicans are obstructionist therefore we had to use it.” And this is the most “ethical” admin. of all time?
Irate Voter commented:
THE SLAUGHTER RULE
S Sneak behind the voter’s back,
L Launching a full scale attack.
A Assume that he’s too dumb to note,
U Undo the meaning of the vote.
G Gut what it means to represent;
H Hide behind your “good” intent.
T Treat the voter like a fool,
E Enable more elitist rule,
R Ram down his throat this socialist “jewel.”
Rush, Usurp, Lie, Evade,
Whatever it takes
Make liberty fade.
Dedicated to the SLAUGHTER of the Democrats at the polls
in November . . . poetic justice.
LibsAreCommies commented:
Welcome to the USSA.
Jim O'Reily commented:
I agree – lets throw these bums out by force if need be… things are getting out of control in DC and they will not listen willingly.
David commented:
When are Americans going to feel enraged enough to do what must be done? Thomas Jefferson said that when the government no longer represents the governed, it is the obligation of the governed to discard that government.
Jefferson would be disappointed that we are letting this government stand until election days.