The Slaughter Rule, whereby House Democrats may “deem” the Senate health care bill passed without actually voting on it, is causing a lot of outrage across the country. There is also a lot of legal opinion on whether such a rule would be constitutional or subject to other legal challenges.
The Constitution seems clear. Article I, Section 7 states: “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…” A bill has to pass both branches of Congress before it can become law. The Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the Senate cannot act on a bill making corrections to the original bill until the President has signed the original bill into law. The President cannot sign the Senate bill into law unless the House has also voted on it. It seems clear that the Slaughter Rule is not a legal way forward.
Politico quotes a law professor who has refreshingly simple advice on for Democrats:
“If I were advising somebody,” on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, “I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let’s pretend.’ ‘Deems’ means it’s not true.”
Democrats will not get away with supporting the Slaughter Rule and claiming that they didn’t vote for the Senate bill.
What’s more, Obamacare passed via the Slaughter Rule will undermine the rule of law, may cause states to declare that the law will be unenforceable within their borders and will unleash anger against the federal government that will make the tea party protest of the past year look like pro-government rallies. Red State has a post that discusses the possibly frightening consequences should Democrats go down this path.
