I've tried to be as objective and civil as I possibly can in my dealings on the subject. My position is simply this: Can and should improvements be made to our current system? Yes. Should the government be the decider and provider of healthcare for all Americans? No. That's where I stand.
According to various news reports, the shortest path toward a health care law is for the House to pass the exact bill the Senate approved last fall. However, many House members do not like that version, and prefer the one they passed last summer (which is surprising, since so many have admitted that they haven't even read the 2000+ page bills being considered). So they want to use a process known as reconciliation - intended only for strict budgetary matters, to force through changes without going through the traditional process.
The traditional approach is quite well articulated by that oldie-but-goodie "How a Bill Becomes a Law" from Schoolhouse Rock. So before we continue, let us reminisce:
In short, the House votes on a bill. If it passes, it goes to the Senate, which has the option of voting on the House bill, or crafting one of their own. In the event that the Senate passes a bill that does not match exactly with that of the House, a conference committee is established to iron out the differences. The final agreement then goes back to both the House and the Senate for another vote. If both assemblies pass the compromise bill, it then goes to the President for signature or veto.
But for whatever reason, the House and Senate leaders decided to "skip" the conference committee. I'm still not clear why they feel it is necessary to circumvent normal parliamentary procedures for getting bills passed. I'm even more unnerved, however, to read news accounts like this one from the Washington Examiner, in which it appears that the majority party will say they "passed the Senate bill" without actually voting on it. Here's the money quote from the Examiner (emphasis mine):
Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.The gist of all this fairly straightforward. Instead of having an actual up or down vote on the Senate bill itself, the House intends simply to say "It passed!" and vote instead on an additional "package" of changes that in turn the Senate would force through reconciliation (which only requires 51 votes, instead of the 60 required to end debate and move to a vote, otherwise known as cloture). Reconciliation wasn't necessary when the Democrat majority had 60 votes, but due to the recent Massachusetts special election, in which voters elected a Republican to the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, reconciliation is the only path that potential avoids a filibuster (to prevent cloture and subsequent vote).
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Here's the issue that bothers me: What is so urgent about this major reordering of 1/6 of the entire U.S. economy that it has to be rushed through Congress using tactics that go against two centuries of legislative tradition? The Constitution very clearly requires in Article I, Section 7 that every bill must have a vote, and the names of those who vote on record as to how they voted (emphasis mine):
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.It seems arguable to me that the method of stating by presumption that the original Senate bill is "passed" without a separate, distinct vote for the public record is unconstitutional. But I confess, the complexities of the U.S. code and these parliamentary tricks that have become the norm within our big government system may water down that argument, especially if there is precedence.
The bottom line is this: if our elected officials are willing to circumvent traditional legislative process and decorum by using possibly unconstitutional methods to achieve particular aims, despite opposition from the public, then what is to prevent future Congresses and Presidents (of either party) from disregarding the Constitution and their constituents whenever it suits them? If our government breaks from the anchor of our founding documents, then it begins to lose its legitimacy. You could even go so far as to infer that our representative government now runs the risk of operating "without consent of the governed." Which itself is the subject for a forthcoming post.
Interesting times ahead, to be sure.
Update 3/16/10: Here's a new Washington Post story about the process.
0 comments:
Post a Comment