This past week, conservatives were up in arms, and after listening to them, I was too. But then I read Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution and realized there isn't anything to be up in arms about. Let me explain. The Democrats are planning to use a procedure this week called "deem it passed." What they are planning to do is vote on a rule that says if the package of changes to the Senate bill is approved, then the Senate bill is deemed passed.
Conservatives has said that Article 1 Section 7 says "the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house repsectively." But they make a mistake by taking that sentence out of context. Article 1 Section 7 actually says the the following in its entirety, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
"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 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 law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nay, 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 accepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a slaw, in like manner as if he had signed, unless congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."
The section of Section 7 that conservatives have been referring to deals with overturning a presidential veto. If the President vetoes a bill, the bill is returned to the house which originatted the bill, and if that houses chooses to vote to override the veto, the votes of that veto must be recorded.
Deem it passed, can be considred Constitutional because, by the rule, everyone who votes to deem it passed will no that they are voting to approve the bill along with the changes to it they want to make. So the vote is a vote on both the Senate bill and the house changes.
Now what's not clear to me is if by doing this, the House passes two seperate bills, or one new bill. If the it is considered two seperate bills, then the Senate has no obligation to approve the changes the house has made, and the Senate bill passes as it is to the President for his signature. If it is one new bill, the bill must return to the Senate for debate and a vote according to Senate rules, and it would be subject to amendments by the Senate, which would then force the bill back to the conference committee where the Senate bill ended up before Scott Brown was elected to the Senate.
So forget arguing that "deem it passed" is unconstitutional. I don't agree. But I do agree that this bill is bad for the United States, and I will make that arguement in my next piece.
Extremus
No comments:
Post a Comment