the new slaughterhouse?

[sanglant]

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/13/constitution-butchers-stop-pelosis-slaughter-house/

yeah yeah, it's Malkin. i can't find a better wright up right now, and i can't stand not seeing a thread on this. there ain't much i can say on this. i is be to depressed to be mad.

note to mod(s): if you want nuke this one and do better. please do. a chimp could do better than this.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Bend over. It won't be good.

[Ryan in Maine]

Ooh they're sneaky! 

[makattak]

For a long time, liberals have breached the Constitution to pass their agenda in the courts. I guess they've just moved on to breaching it in Congress, too.

[roo_ster]

Think on this:

The left has worked assiduously to apply/extend both the COTUS's provisions for citizens and various bits of the Geneva Convention on folks that quite simply and explicitly are not eligible for such protections.

But, when it comes to the very heart of our Constitutional order, the left is willing to toss the COTUS by the wayside to get the result they desire...and rip from the citizenry the protections contained therein.

One could reasonably deduce, by their actions, that the left does not much like America's citizens and does rather cotton to non-citizens intent on our destruction.

[roo_ster]

[mtnbkr]

This is hardly a new procedure and its use skyrocketed under Republicans.

Once again, we find ourselves railing against Democratic use of tools created or popularized by Republicans.  If you don't want the left to have the tools, don't legitimize them by letting the Right have/use them.

From an article written in 2006:

From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

Chris

[AZRedhawk44]

This is hardly a new procedure and its use skyrocketed under Republicans.

Once again, we find ourselves railing against Democratic use of tools created or popularized by Republicans.  If you don't want the left to have the tools, don't legitimize them by letting the Right have/use them.

+1.

Every law/procedure/policy should be examined from the perspective of the greatest harm it can cause later on, rather than the possible immediate benefit now.

Wait until 2012.  I'll bet we'll see some Democrat-initiated chilling of Republican/Conservative/Tea-Party grass roots leadership, citing the Patriot Act as a grounds for doing so.  Make Watergate seem like an honorable scandal.

[makattak]

This is hardly a new procedure and its use skyrocketed under Republicans.

Once again, we find ourselves railing against Democratic use of tools created or popularized by Republicans.  If you don't want the left to have the tools, don't legitimize them by letting the Right have/use them.

From an article written in 2006:
Chris

And what's missing from that article:

NONE of those self executing rules were used to PASS A BILL. They were used mostly on resolutions that applied to the house.

Passing an unpopular law and then claiming, "but I wasn't voting on THAT law!" through this process is EXACTLY the kind of thing the founders were proscribing in the constitution.

Incidentally, anyone else sick of not only the "but THEY did it!" coming from the democrats, but how easily other people believe that crap. Don't you think if the Republicans had done something this heinous, they would have been CALLED ON IT?

[mtnbkr]

And what's missing from that article:

NONE of those self executing rules were used to PASS A BILL. They were used mostly on resolutions that applied to the house.

Cites? 

In the article above, they say this

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

The substitute submitted by the Rules Committee did not combine all the amendments adopted by the three reporting committees, as is customarily done. Instead, it deleted two amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee that would have required disclosure of lobbyists’ contacts with Members and staff, and lobbyists’ solicitation and transmission of campaign contributions to candidates.

It then further amended its own substitute by automatically deleting a third Judiciary amendment requiring a Government Accountability Office study of lobbyist employment contracts.

The third self-executing provision occurs at the end of the special rule and states: “In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall ... add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 4975.” In other words, the Clerk was authorized to add as an amendment an entire separate bill, in this case, the House-passed legislation regulating Section 527 political committees, and thereby put that issue into conference with the Senate (which has no comparable provision in its bill).

which reads as if they self-executing rule was used to modify a bill before passage, but I can't tell by reading if it actually passed the bill itself.

Incidentally, anyone else sick of not only the "but THEY did it!" coming from the democrats, but how easily other people believe that crap. Don't you think if the Republicans had done something this heinous, they would have been CALLED ON IT?

Slaughter's on website cried foul back in 2006 in response to the Bill referenced above: http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=510&Itemid=106

Chris

[MechAg94]

At least you can say that was only a small revision.  This is still an order of magnitude higher.  That said, I don't really agree with any of it. 

I do agree with makattak that "..but they did it too" is not a valid defense and is not a reason to allow a bad thing to happen again.  It is a common argument both online and in the news media.  Saying the other guys are just as much scumbags and I am should be a reason that we say it is okay.  :)

[mtnbkr]

At least you can say that was only a small revision.  This is still an order of magnitude higher.  That said, I don't really agree with any of it. 

I do agree with makattak that "..but they did it too" is not a valid defense and is not a reason to allow a bad thing to happen again.  It is a common argument both online and in the news media.  Saying the other guys are just as much scumbags and I am should be a reason that we say it is okay.  :)

The problem is, it is very difficult to stand against this even though it's an order of magnitude higher when the other side is using the same tools.  It doesn't matter if their motives were pure or not.  The procedure is wrong or it isn't.  How it is used is a technicality.

I'm still waiting for cites showing the Republicans have NEVER used this to pass a bill. 

Chris

[MechAg94]

The problem is, it is very difficult to stand against this even though it's an order of magnitude higher when the other side is using the same tools.  It doesn't matter if their motives were pure or not.  The procedure is wrong or it isn't.  How it is used is a technicality.

I'm still waiting for cites showing the Republicans have NEVER used this to pass a bill. 

Chris

I am currently thinking it is wrong.  Most of the stuff you quoted sounded like rules to get items out of committee.  I thought I saw it was used once to modify a house bill before it was put to a final vote with the modification not being voted on specifically.  It didn't say if the modified bill was already voted out of the house.     

Whether Republicans used it before or not doesn't stop me from being upset the Democrats are using it now for this.  IMO, it is a foolish argument anyway.  It assumes that everyone criticizing this is a Republican cheerleader who loves Everything they do.  I can't think of anyone on this site that fits that description. 

[sanglant]

Yes, self-executing rules have been used in the past, but as the Congressional Research Service put it in a 2006 paper, "Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills." They've also been used for amendments such as to a 1998 bill that "would have permitted the CIA to offer employees an early-out retirement program"—but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

still looking for a list, maybe tomorrow

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm still waiting for cites showing the Republicans have NEVER used this to pass a bill. 

It would be more productive for you to cite where Republicans HAVE used this to pass a bill.  Until we have evidence that it's been done as you say, all we have is hot air.

And let's agree that using this technique for minor internal procedural matters is a far different beast compared with using it to pass law against the citizenry.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Pointing to others bad behavior to justify your own is, well if I finish my thought I will get banned

Did Rs use it?  Yep. Did they use it to wipe their ass with the Constitution and take over 1/6th of the economy making you and I pay more of our $$ to support it. No. If they had, there would be dozens of threads here, and other places condeming it's use.

Cry, shout as much as you want " The Rs used it". Your just showing that 5th grade mentality of not being able to see the woods for the trees. How left of ya.

Just think. Had the Rs used this end run on say the Patriot Act. We would still be shouting about it. Hell, using this to enshrine the 2A as meaning exactly what is says til the end of time is tempting, but the precedent it would set scares the crap out of me. These democrats are just democrats in name only.

[Perd Hapley]

It would be more productive for you to cite where Republicans HAVE used this to pass a bill.  Until we have evidence that it's been done as you say, all we have is hot air.

Yeah.  Proving a negative, and presumption of innocence, and all that. 

[Inor]

The problem is, it is very difficult to stand against this even though it's an order of magnitude higher when the other side is using the same tools.  It doesn't matter if their motives were pure or not.  The procedure is wrong or it isn't.  How it is used is a technicality.

I am very new to this site so please forgive me if I offend anyone.

Mtnbkr's point is *exactly* correct.  The Progressive Republicans used this technique to move things through Congress faster than they otherwise would have.  Or, they used it to move through unpopular procedural motions without putting their name on the vote.  Now the Progressive Democrats are doing the same thing, just in a much larger measure.  It IS the same game and it is unconstitutional, no matter who is doing it.

The Founders structured the House and Senate to be intentionally inefficient.  They understood that law passed quickly are usually bad. 

Somewhere the message got lost.  In December 1917 the Federal government decided to enact Prohibition, but Congress (correctly) assumed they needed a Constitutional Amendment to enact such sweeping legislation at the Federal level.  (Fortunately, by 1933 they discovered the errror of their ways and repealed it. - so I can legally drink this REALLY awsome micro-brew that Mrs. Inor bough for me as I write this.)  Ask yourselves, since 1917 how many new Federal agencies and new Federal departments have been created solely through statute without even a consideration of the Constitution?

Now it surprises us that our current generation of congresscritters should not even follow the rules for statute law?  Peebo (my name for the current POTUS), Pelosi, and Reid are SOBs to be sure, but they are just the end-game started by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  It is not the Democrats that I fear.  It is the Progressives - in both parties. 

IMO any law, proposed by either party, must be measured against, and follow the rules laid plain in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.  These are the documents given to us by the Founders describing how our Republic is to be structured and how it is to function.  They were not written to be understood only by scholars and other "pointy heads".  They were written to be understood by common folks - guys like you and me.  If our betters in the political class need to change the meanings of words to make their point, it is almost certainly unconstitutional.  I mean, what part of "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is ambigous?

Sorry to get on my soapbox, but this very near and dear to my heart.  When judging any law, read the founding documents; if any law does not pass muster with both the language and the "spirit" of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers it is a BAD law.

Until I write again, keep your Bible close and your powder dry.

-I-

[mtnbkr]

It would be more productive for you to cite where Republicans HAVE used this to pass a bill.  Until we have evidence that it's been done as you say, all we have is hot air.

I never said it was used to pass a bill.  I merely said they used it.  Since Mak claimed otherwise, I left it up to him to prove his point.  We know how many times it was used, it should be simple matter to list each case.

And let's agree that using this technique for minor internal procedural matters is a far different beast compared with using it to pass law against the citizenry.

First, it wasn't how the FF intended for the Congress to operate.  Second, the dems will escalate any technique to its absurd limit.  The solution is to not use any method that allows them to do so.  Limit power, limit funds, starve the beast. 

Yeah.  Proving a negative, and presumption of innocence, and all that. 

Try again.  You know that's not what I said. 

Ok, I went back and read my last post.  I did ask for proof they never used it to pass a bill.  But, my initial statement did not differentiate between manners of usage.  Still, my statement above stands.  We know the number, so list the cases.  Either there will be bills or not.

Cry, shout as much as you want " The Rs used it". Your just showing that 5th grade mentality of not being able to see the woods for the trees. How left of ya.

Nice subtle attack there.  The point is, if we use it, they will too and will escalate to the absurd extreme.  If we had never used it (or at least not increased its use significantly), we could at least claim the moral high ground.  Therefore, the best solution is not to use methods that are in gray areas of legal and moral justification.

Chris

[MechAg94]

Nice subtle attack there.  The point is, if we use it, they will too and will escalate to the absurd extreme.  If we had never used it (or at least not increased its use significantly), we could at least claim the moral high ground.  Therefore, the best solution is not to use methods that are in gray areas of legal and moral justification.

No, the point is this thread started about using this procedure to try to pass the health care bill and you are trying to derail it into a Republican bashing thread.  If you want to do that, start a new thread.

IMO, it doesn't matter what was done before when no one noticed, I don't like that they are using it now.  

And HTG is correct.  You are asking for others to disprove your accusation.  You are the one who is demanding others post proof they didn't do it.  The bit of stuff you did post earlier doesn't say they passed a bill.  

I'm still waiting for you to post proof that you are not a bank robber.  :)

[mtnbkr]

IMO, it doesn't matter what was done before when no one noticed, I don't like that they are using it now. 

They did notice.  They complained then and are now using to justify their current usage.

And HTG is correct.  You are asking for others to disprove your accusation.  You are the one who is demanding others post proof they didn't do it.  The bit of stuff you did post earlier doesn't say they passed a bill.

Correct, I didn't make any claim regarding how they used the provision, just that they used it repeatedly  and legitimized it for future users.  Mak is the one who claimed they never used it to pass a bill. 

NONE of those self executing rules were used to PASS A BILL. They were used mostly on resolutions that applied to the house.

He made the statement, I'm asking for him to back it up.  My statement was true and provable.  Republicans did use the provision.   How they used it was not specified in the article or by me.

Point is, if you're going to make a statement (NONE of those self executing rules were used to PASS A BILL.), be prepared to back it up.

Also, if you are going to repeatedly use a provision, you better be prepared for it to be used and abused by your enemies.

Chris

[Jimmy Dean]

From this mornings Patriot Post:

"Unfortunately, there is precedent in invoking the "self-executing rule" -- by Republicans, no less -- concerning "mundane" legislation agreed to by House leaders of both parties. Unconstitutional as these precedents are, there is nothing "mundane" about ObamaCare." - Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes, but have the Republicans used "self-executing rules" to pass legislation?  Using self-executing rules "concerning" legislation doesn't mean they've passed legislation into law using those rules.

The distinction is critical, because each house of Congress constitutionally allowed to manage its own internal rules and regs.  As such, I'd think it's perfectly valid for the House or Senate to use self-executing rules to do stuff like debate bills, bring bills in or out of committee, make changes to bills under consideration, and so forth.  Heck, they could do all that by coin toss or by asking Joe the janitor's opinion if they really wanted to.

But when they get around to actually passing a bill into law, they MUST vote on it.  To do anything else is wrong.  

Now, any of y'all claiming that the Repubs have done what the Dems are now trying to do, pass legislation without voting on it, ought to back up your assertions with a sound citation or retract.  Cause based on what we know now, the R's have never tried anything like this, and they bear no responsibi8lity whatsoever for what the D's are trying to do.  That's all on them.

And can we all agree that's reprehensible for the Dems to do this now even if the Reps have done something similar in the past?

[mtnbkr]

Now, any of y'all claiming that the Repubs have done what the Dems are now trying to do, pass legislation without voting on it, ought to back up your assertions with a sound citation or retract.

Nobody said that and you know it.  What WAS said is the Republicans used it.  No specific manner of use was specified.

And can we all agree that's reprehensible for the Dems to do this now even if the Reps have done something similar in the past?

Nobody said it wasn't, but they opened the door for the dems.  Had they not made a habit of using it and rubbed their nose in it, the dems might not ever considered using it in this way.  It may very well have remained an obscure procedural tool.  

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Nobody said that and you know it.  What WAS said is the Republicans used it.  No specific manner of use was specified.

Ok, so we agree that the Repubs haven't done anything like what the Dems are now trying to do.  

Good.

Nobody said it wasn't, but they opened the door for the dems.  

No.  They.  Did.  Not.  

First off, see above, where we agree that Reps haven't done anything like this. For that matter, neither have past Dems ever done anything like this.

Second, let's think this idea through a little deeper.

I like to shoot at paper targets at the range.  Does that mean a murderer (or his apologist) can claim that I'm legitimizing the act of shooting at innocent people, that I'm somehow "opening the door" to shooting people since I performing the same basic actions, even though I'm doing it in a wholly responsible way and he is not?  Would any thinking person take that argument seriously?  

Does driving to work following all of the speed limits "legitimize" reckless drivers to break all of the rules and put peoples' lives at risk?  Or does sleeping with your wife "open the door" to your neighbor raping someone?  I'm sure we could come up with all sorts of interesting examples of performing a given action fairly and honorably, and then demonstrate that doing so doesn't reflect on someone else's choices to perform the same action improperly.

So why is the use of House trigger rules any different?  How does Republican use (or past Democrat use, for that matter) of internal House rules in legal and proper ways justify/enable/legitimize/open-the-door for the current crop of Dems to misuse House rules to illegally pass a bill?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.  No way, no how.  

As far as using trigger-rules goes, it's only ever been used responsibly and legitimately, within the bounds of the rules, regardless of party.  For the current Dems to grossly brak the law and violate the constitution in this way is entirely without precedent.  We ought to recognize that they and they alone are responsible for their independent  actions, not try to spread blame around to others who have nothing to do with it.