Is the “Slaughter Solution” for Health Care Reform Constitutional?

I

Let the games begin!  The Democrats are going to use the “self execution” rule, also known as the “Slaughter solution” by the Right and the “Gingrich” rule by the left, depending on whose ox is being gored, to pass and deliver a health care reform bill to the President. This is a “cram down” use of House rules to defeat the “cram down” defeat of majority rule in the Senate by filibuster.  Is it Constitutional?  Some, including a conservative former 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, Michael McConnell say no, citing a violation of the “presentation clause” and the case of Clinton v. State of New York, 524 U. S. 417 (1998) (line item veto permits the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of acts of Congress and all such acts must be first approved by both houses and Congress and the presented to the President for signature to create new law).

 So here is the deal. The Dems plan to incorporate the Senate Bill already passed with 60 votes into a new bill that will “deem” the Senate bill approved by the house and will offer what is essentially a new bill amending the statute thus adopted.  The Senate bill will have to be presented to the President to sign which will make it law and then the Senate will have to agree to the House amending bill  only requiring a majority to amend) which will then go to the President to make the final law.

Assuming that the proper “presentation” to the President of the initial bill is made it is difficult to see how the maneuver is unconstitutional.  You live by the rules and you die by the rules.  The issue here is very different than giving the President the authority to unilaterally amend Acts of Congress passed and presented to him and signed into law. There is no constitutional requirement that the House vote on the Senate bill be totally separate from the vote to also subsequently amend it.