Have the Democrats Gone Insane?

[jordan179]

As most Americans and perhaps many foreigners know, the Democrats are currently attempting to pass Obamacare through the singular method of the House "deeming" that the Senate will pass it through the reconciliation vote, then voting on it, and finally Obama signing into "law" a bill which has not actually been passed by both houses. The quotes on

Comments

[marycatelli]

I'm gloomier than you. When have we ever gotten rid of a government bureaucracy? No matter how patent useless and unconstitutional?

[jordan179]

It's not a matter of "getting rid of it." It's a matter of the fact that "deeming" it to have passed won't establish it in the first place, unless the Courts, the Republicans and the American people all decide to lie down and let this stand. Obama and Pelosi are failing to lay the legal foundations for setting up Obamacare, but (wrongly, I believe) feel that they are Just So Very Important People that everyone will do what they say anyway.

The MSM is enabling them, and in the process inadvertengly sabotaging them as well. Because Obama probably could have gotten some of this in as a series of Executive Orders, or regulations changes -- but he thinks he's Maximum Leader for Life of a banana republic, and so he's not going to get any of this. He might even wind up impeached for trying, if the election of 2010 goes badly enough for him and the Republicans are in a particularly vindictive mood.

[operations]

No, sorry. You can be hopeful all you want, and try and trust in a Constitution that is no longer cared about or enforced, but I've read too much history. We have hit the downturn.

This ends in blood and fire. The only question is in how long.

[jordan179]

This ends in blood and fire. The only question is in how long.

I agree -- but about our trajectory as a whole, not about this particular bill. There's a very good chance that this bill, if "passed" in such away, will be struck down in part or in whole by the courts. But even if this happens, a good portion of America's political and intellectual elites will have signaled that they no longer feel the need to play by the Constitution. And that way lies dictatorship, civil war and empire.

[pathia]

I just want something to pass, something to give me a chance. Hell, pass one of the GOP bills. I don't care, anything is better than the status quo.

Despite my leftist positions, I'm very meh about the bill as it stands, not so much for what it's trying to do, but the ridiculous cost of the 'buyouts' for various senators in it. They aren't even trying to be subtle about it, there's literally bribery in the bill.

[jordan179]

Even if Obamacare were a very good bill, making it law by directly violating one of the most fundamental parts of the US Constitution -- the requirement for a bill to pass both Houses of Congress before it may be signed into law by the President -- would have terrible consequences. It would mean that the President could sign any piece of paper from any source -- including himself -- and enact it into law. Essentially, it would make the President into a four-year dictator, and with that kind of power, the requirement of re-election wouldn't last very long.

[pathia]

I'm dying, not anytime soon, but way sooner than I should. Forgive me if I'm not rational, I make no claims to be such a person. I don't want to die, really that's all it boils down to and such a position doesn't leave one to being entirely rational.

[melvin_udall]

I sympathize with your situation. By the time you are 38 a health care panel will decide you are no longer allowed treatment, given you've lived your life and the system is bankrupt. Then you will have no alternatives, because the government panel decides all.

Being shot in the face is not a "solution" to a broken leg. Anything is not better than nothing. There is a reason all those bribes were necessary.

I wish you luck and health.

(shudder)

[btripp]

The thing that has most stood out for me in the Dems trying to shove Communism down our throats, is how little they regard (or understand) the American system

Re: (shudder)

[ford_prefect42]

It comes as a surprise that the far left resembles the National Socialist German workers party? The myth that Hitler was "right wing" is getting very annoying to me. Really, a fascist is just a socialist with a nicer uniform. Look at the differences in philosophy between the two and it becomes plain that they are birds of a feather.

[chris_gerrib]

As I said to your question on my LJ, according to this article, the more commonly-used term for this is a "self-executing rule."

Self-executing rules have been used in the House since the 1930s, and withstood Constitutional scrutiny. Basically, the House combines two votes into one - in this case a vote on the Senate bill and a vote on the fixes to that bill.

Then the Senate will still have to pass the House fixes. But because of Senate rules, the fixes can't be filibustered - it will be a simple majority vote.

[jordan179]

Previously, self-executing rules were used to make minor modifications to existing legislations, such as increasing debt ceilings. The courts allowed this in the public interest. What Obama and Pelosi are trying to do strikes at the heart of the Constitution -- the basic procedure for bill passage -- and doing with regard to a major legislative innovation. I would be unpleasantly surprised if the courts let this stand -- in fact, by trying this, Obama and Pelosi may wind up killing the whole concept of self-executing rules.

The House cannot vote on a Senate bill before the bill has been passed by the Senate, since the bill does not yet exist, constitutionally speaking. Furthermore, the House cannot by its actions deprive Senators of their own privileges. Otherwise, what would prevent a President from simply "deeming" that Congress had passed a bill and then signing it into law, irregardless of any actual Congressional votes on the matter?

[unixronin]

Precisely. The whole point of using the self-executing rule and "deem and pass", in this case, is as a subterfuge to allow the Democrats to pass a massive spending bill, a major piece of legislation which legally requires a 60% majority in the House, to pass with only a 50%+1 vote. It is a direct attempt to openly and blatantly violate the Constitution, hand-waved as a legislative stratagem.

[jordan179]

It is a direct attempt to openly and blatantly violate the Constitution, hand-waved as a legislative stratagem.

... and fortunately, for that reason I don't think it will be allowed to stand. It's too blatant, something Obama is doing only because he is coming to really believe all the Obamessianic crap.

[stryck]

Mark Levin has already prepared a brief in order to file suit should the bill be passed via the "Slaughter Rule". There is a Facebook group of people who have stated they will not comply with it. (I think it's "I Will Not Comply".)

Today, Virginia passed a law that states that, should the "Obamacare" law be passed and signed into law, it will not legally affect nor be enforced in Virginia. And they're the second state to do so. I can't recall the first off the top of my head

[jordan179]

If this thing is "passed" and enforcement starts, there is a chance that it will stick, but it has to stick through challenges, state revolt, and two elections before things might die down.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's going to stand. Which means that the Democrats will have expended political capital (and careers) for nothing, save a slight destablization of our Constitutional system.

And yet, I recall a poll result of Democrats voting for the bill, and most of them genuinely think that passing the bill will help their election results in the fall.

They are truly deluded -- what they are doing is convincing moderates that voting Republican is the only way to save Constitutional government.

They've talked themselves into the belief that winning is all that matters. If they win, then everybody will love them for winning.

Winning helps politically -- but not if "winning" hurts the perceived Constitutional protections afforded the electorate. As long as enough of the voters know their rights, this is going to be a

[akilika]

Having been that geek who took the extra history courses as electives . . . history courses in public school are kind of a joke, more concerned with current political sensibilities than which things actually happened. (I don't believe the individual teachers have a choice about it, either, but that's just an impression.)

In short, I'm not sure that Roman history being part of the general curriculum would help much.

[stryck]

Winning is everything to the radical left. Obama's sweep into office with all the seats was their vindication, their victory, their revolution. At long last, they had won, and now they could remake our country as they wished. They thought they had won a position of power, but not one of responsibility