The Slaughter dissolution
This article has been read 245 times.
Proposed plan to pass health care reform is unconstitutional as it nullifies the role of the House of Representatives
For the eight years of President George W. Bush’s administration, I heard liberals cry day after day that Bush was shredding our Constitution. This was mainly in regard to the infamous Patriot Act — a measure that I too oppose, as it severely violates many constitutional provisions.
But the same liberals are stunningly silent when our Constitution is now being shredded before our very eyes.
What am I talking about? If you guessed health care “reform,” I suppose you’d be partially right. It does involve health care legislation currently on the table, but the violation has to do specifically with the way some Democrats want to pass this bill. If you also guessed that I’m speaking of reconciliation, you’d be partially right again.
But what I’m specifically talking about is the so-called “Slaughter solution” put forward by New York’s Democratic congresswoman Louise Slaughter, which would, in principle, dissolve the existence of the House of Representatives.
Here’s how everything fits together: Since the Senate passed its version of the health care reform bill back around Christmas, the bill hasn’t been able to make its way through the House — mainly because Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill in the House.
To remedy this situation, the Senate wanted to use a complicated parliamentary procedure known as “reconciliation,” which has been used enough times before. But this process can only be used once the House has voted on the bill. As you’ve probably already guessed, the purpose of “reconciliation” is to solve differences between the House and Senate in the Senate with a simple majority vote.
But the bill has been stalled in the House due to the lack of votes. In desperation, the “Slaughter solution” was proposed, which basically says that the Senate’s version of the bill should be deemed as passed in the House of Representatives without ever having been voted on in the House.
This move would essentially void the role of the House of Representatives in the legislative process and completely ignore the Constitution. It’s funny that liberals aren’t crying about this.
Wait a minute, they’re in power, so it must be OK.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of whichever party tampers with the Constitution, be it the “Slaughter solution,” proposed health care reform or the Patriot Act, it is wrong.
But let’s take this a step farther. If the “Slaughter solution” were to be implemented, not only would it have a detrimental effect on the House of Representatives, but it would weaken the power of the Congress overall. What will stop future legislators from one house from using this strategy against the other?
Why do we even need a legislature to create and pass laws if, without ever having voted on those laws, they can be deemed passed?
If this were to happen, the executive branch would have unlimited power to make laws without the consent of the governed. But this sort of practice already occurs thanks to the hundreds of agencies and bureaucracies who create and pass rules and regulations that are never voted on by anyone.
But if Congress had no power, the executive branch, and by extension President Barack Obama, could do as he pleases. Since the legislature would be insignificant, there would no longer be a real process to amend the Constitution, which means the executive branch could do it at will.
Granted, this scenario is a complete exaggeration of this situation, but this is what happens with “progressive” political ideology — you eventually progress into Totalitarianism.
So I ask my liberal friends, are you OK with the U.S. Constitution being shredded so long as it’s your guy who is doing it? The ball is in your court.
Whoa! that post was quite helpful thanks.
Good sharing of concept here in any manner thanks for posting valueble information..before I could thank allowed coment on your own blog, I buy lots of information of your stuff, If only I really could be a lot more information within you .
Mr. Jarzen,
I don’t know if you have read what the Slaughter solution entails, but you are clearly misrepresenting how it works. First of all, the proposed “solution” is essentially a self-executing rule. This is basically when the House attaches a bill (in this case the Senate health reform bill) to another bill and the House votes on that bill. This other bill must specifically deal with and mention the tagged bill. It is a very commonly used procedural measure in the House of Representatives (it has been used approximately 85 times in the past five years only) and has existed since the early 20th century. You are absolutely correct that there is some debate over whether or not this procedure is constitutional, but saying that Congress would never vote on the bill is false and saying that the Slaughter solution “void[s] the role of the House of Representatives in the legislative process and completely ignore[s] the Constitution” is absolutely ridiculous. Liberals, moderates, and most conservatives are not having your reaction for precisely this reason- not because they like Democrats more than Republicans.
As for this week’s “Jarzen Slippery-Slope Fallacy,” your whole premise of the legislative branch becoming obsolete through the use of self-executing rules is invalided given that you incorrectly stated that there were not voting because of this procedural measure. Despite this, I do want to take the time to address a couple things you specifically said.
You touch upon the undeniable escalating conflict between the Senate and the House of Representatives- which, in my honest opinion, is the most interesting thing brought up in your article. It will be fascinating to see if a bicameral legislature will succumb to a unicameral legislature based upon representation (as the majority of countries have). This is a very hot topic in today’s world of political science in the U.S., and I would love to see some discussion about it at UNLV. It is a very nonpartisan issue and something which we will inevitably have to address as either positive, negative, or neutral.
You address your “liberal friends,” which, I’m sorry, but did illicit a chuckle from me. I can’t imagine too many liberals would mark you as their friend when you have generalized them as Marxist, Statist, Nazis who have constructed a world-wide conspiracy to make people think that they actually care about the unfortunate and the environment in order to construct a totalitarian government. It also doesn’t help that the College Republicans accused liberals of inventing abortion through Planned Parenthood as a form of eugenics because they are racist against blacks and latinos. I, honestly, do not think that it is necessary for me to point out the ridiculousness of all of this, but I do want to take a moment to deal with the “liberals are Statists” philosophy which you seem to really vigorously push on readers, once again, by claiming that progressive ideology inevitably leads to Totalitarianism. First of all, I am sure that it is really easy, exciting, and fun to string together a bunch of emotionally charged words to use as propaganda when you don’t actually know what those words mean, but it is an extremely unethical thing to do.
For those of you who don’t know what Statism is or use it too loosely (like Mr. Jarzen), let me very succinctly summarize its basic principle: Statists believe that the government should be responsible for regulating its constituents’ social and economic environs. Therefore, Mr. Jarzen is saying that liberals (which he is equating with the Democratic party) want the government to have power in both the money and philosophies of the people. However, Mr. Jarzen is ignoring the fact that while fiscal liberals do advocate for greater oversight of corporations and the economy, social liberals want the government to completely stay away from citizens’ individual liberties, which is completely against the policies of Statism. Thus, conservatives saying that liberals are Statists is like liberals saying that conservatives are Mercantilists or Theocratic Authoritarians. Mr. Jarzen completely ignores the dualism of the fiscal/social axis that goes along with liberalism/conservativism, generalizing all people in the Democratic party as liberals, and making the ridiculous claim that anyone who wants even a degree of oversight in the economic sector (ie: fiscal liberals) wants the government to control everything that has to do with the economy (I would hope that people would be able to recognize the lunacy of this, but please feel free to ask if you would like more elaboration).
I am sure this will elicit gasps, but the truth is that the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely similar. The way that both liberals and conservatives generalize and demonize each other may sway the naïve and invigorate their bases, but it is completely inaccurate, totally irresponsible, and an extremely dirty form of propaganda. It is my sincere hope that liberals, conservatives, and moderates (who often feel very superior to the other two) will evolve past the need for this facetious means of swaying the public.
-R.C.
P.S. “The fact of the matter is that regardless of whichever party tampers with the Constitution, be it the “Slaughter solution,” proposed health care reform of the Patriot Act, it is wrong.”
I think that most Americans, namely African-Americans and Women, would disagree with you.