12 March 2010

I'm just a Bill....yes I'm only a Bill. And yes I can explain it all

Let me take a moment to explain where we are in relation to the status of the Health Care Bill.


Article 1 section 7 of the Constitution states that a Bill must be voted on by BOTH houses before it can be signed into a law.

Now what does this mean?  It means that a Bill is presented by Congress (Nancy Pelosi) it is debated on, amended, then passed, then it is sent to the Senate (Harry Reid).  The Senate can do two things.  First; it could pass the Bill as is to be signed into law by the President.  Or if the Senate makes ANY changes to the Bill it MUST go back to Congress for approval, if passed then it could be signed into law.  However, if Congress makes ANY changes to the Bill it must be voted on again by the Senate before it is signed into law.  Seems pretty straight forward.

Now this is where things get messed up.

The Congress has a passed Bill.  And the Senate has a separate Bill that it passed.  Now as the Constitution clearly states Both houses MUST vote on a one bill for it to become a law.  Now the question is which Bill will make it to Obama?  As it stands now neither bill can be signed into law because as we learned BOTH houses must vote on a SINGLE bill.  In other words a single all agreed upon, unchanged Bill moves from both houses, is passed, then the President signs the Bill into law.

Now there is talk in Congress by a Louise Slaughter to "change" its rules so that the Senate Bill could be passed without a Vote from Congress.  This clearly breaks down the fire walls put into place by the Constitution.  The separation of powers and the checks and balances were put into place for just this reason, so one branch cannot hold all the power and make laws without consent of both Houses.

This is why the Republicans have been asking to kill the bills and start fresh.  This is also why the Democrats are having so mush trouble passing anything.  Why?  Because they cannot agree on 1 single Bill.

However, and I cannot stress enough Reconciliation can only be used on PASSED laws, and for budgetary reasons only, which is clearly not the case here.  Something must make it to Obama desk before this can happen.

Now let me make my self very clear, if Congress uses the Slaughter rule change and blesses the Senate bill without voting on it.  In my humble opinion this will be the greatest affront to the Constitution since the South succeed from the Union starting the Civil War.  Or as others have said this will be the closest thing to Marshal Law this country has ever seen.

Something to think about

America Prevails

Information Minister

Loyal Opposition

JohnGalt1984



P.S. Thanks to SSG_E for being a faithful reader

1 comment:

SSG_E said...

I agree that the process is being corrupted and manipulated in an effort to pass a bill that less that 1/3 of the American people want. You are correct that forcing this bill down America's throat could very well lead to outright revolt (hopefully nonviolent).

However, I don't understand your last comment:

"In my humble opinion this will be the greatest affront to the Constitution since the South succeed from the Union starting the Civil War. Or as others have said this will be the closest thing to Marshal Law this country has ever seen."

First of all can I be kind of a jackass for a moment and point out that instead of "succeed" you meant "secede". Also instead of "Marshal" you meant "Martial".

Okay, I am done being a jerk. I certainly agree that passing Obamacare would be an affront to the Constitution. But when you say that this will be the greatest affront to the Constitution since the South seceded, what do you mean? Are you saying that the Constitution is a suicide pact and no state can secede if it feels the federal government has become abusive? The states asserted in the convention that they could secede from the union if they perceived that the federal government had become oppressive. At least 2 states threatened to leave the union due to the Alien and Sedition Acts that were passed under President John Adams. I am not justifying the South's actions in the Civil War. The South tried to spread slavery into new territories which was strictly forbidden in the Constitution because the federal government had jurisdiction over unorganized territory. However, states do have the right to secede. Or, at least they did. Several states made it clear that the Constitution was meant to be a voluntary compact among states. They did not intend to yield power to an all powerful national government. I am probably over-analyzing this aren't I?

As far as the Martial Law comment, it was declared at least a couple of times in our history. For example, it was declared in Washington DC during the Civil War.

I am not trying to snipe you here. I guess I'm just bored today. My usual blogging opposition has been quiet lately and I am just looking for an argument I guess.