The anti-Obamacare crowd blogs are up on the ramparts today decrying and vilifying the sneaky move Democrats are proposing to use a House of Representatives rule to push through health care reform. The opponents entitle the maneuver the “Slaughter solution” after the House Rules Committee Chairman, Louise Slaughter, ( D. NY). It was also previously called the "Gephardt Rule" and the "Gingrich Rule." It is unconstitutional they say because it deprives the public of a vote by its representatives and it fails to comply with the “presentation” clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 which requires a bill to be passed by both houses of Congress and presented to the President for his signature before becoming law.
The “Slaughter solution” as Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio) calls it is actually known as the “self executing rule” and has been around since the 1970s. With the polarization of the politics in Washington it has become a more frequently used procedural device to limit amendments and to push through contentious legislation. The maneuver works as follows: since the health care reform bill passed the Senate with 60 votes and is different from the House Bill. It would normally require reconciliation of the two bills and a presentation for revote in both houses. Since the Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof, 60 vote majority health care reform in a reconciled bill would be dead on arrival, since the Republicans are uniformly opposed to any health care reform bill, that substantially changes the current landscape.
The Democrats in the house could take the bill approved by the Senate and agree to pass it '"as is "and then present the bill to the President for signature. Trouble is that there are abortion language, “public option” and other issues that the House Democrats disagree with their Senate colleagues on and politically voting for the Senate bill would be politically unpalatable. The self executing bill would permit the House to “deem” the Senate bill passed and then in the same bill offer amendments to cure some of the unpopular provisions of the Senate bill. By “deeming” the bill passed the House would not actually vote on the bill standing alone, but as part of a package with the amendments. By “deeming” the bill passed it could be signed into law by the President and the amendments thereto approved alone by the Senate on a majority vote that is not subject to the 60 vote filibuster buster rule.
This is undemocratic the opponents say and undermines the Constitution. They say it is an onerous parliamentary procedure to thwart the will of the people. Interestingly it was most used in the 105th Congress when Newt Gingrich, (R. Ga.) was speaker of the house. Further, is democracy served by the filibuster which is itself a “procedural” maneuver? The term filibuster is derived from the Spanish word “filibustero” or pirate. It was commonly used to describe the activists in the Southern States who were actively trying to disrupt the actions of democratic governments in Latin America during the 19th Century. According to Wikipedia the term “filibuster” is a type of parliamentary procedure. Specifically it is a form of obstruction in a legislative or other decision making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal. Not exactly a paragon of democratic procedure. In other words, the Democrats, ironically, are using an undemocratic parliamentary procedure in the house to overcome an undemocratic parliamentary procedure in the House. There is a lot more hypocrisy, than democracy in this debate and furor.
Comments