Louise Slaughter, D. NY
As outrageous as the Democrats’ behavior has been in trying to cram healthcare through to passage, we still had to say, “Hey, wait a minute” when reports of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” cropped up on talk shows today. I mean, would they really do this?
The Slaughter Solution is named for New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who is also the House Rules Chairperson. Basically, according to the National Journal’s Congress Daily, as quoted in the Washington Examiner:
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version (emphasis ours).
Basically, the House would “deem” that they passed the Senate’s version, even though they haven’t. The House would vote on the rule but not the bill itself. This way, House members can make corrections to the bill before the pass it, which they won’t ever actually do. This sort of goofy logic would be laughable (like so many Democrat shenanigans) if it weren’t being seriously put forward. Radio talker (and constitutional scholar) Mark Levin is both outraged at the notion and terrified of the consequences, calling for the expulsion of Ms. Slaughter at the very least, because she should know better — and if she doesn’t, she’s incompetent to hold her position. The Slaughter Solution essentially opens the way for Congress to create laws without passing them. By fiat. By manipulation alone. But not by a vote.
Our guess (and hope) is that this maneuver won’t happen. As of this afternoon it hadn’t been presented to the House leadership (and maybe, just maybe, it was floated as a trial balloon just to test reaction). But the fact that it has been considered by anyone in Congress is chilling. Ms. Slaughter should not be in Congress at all, much less making rules that relieve members of the responsibility of voting. But this is the mentality that runs our government at the moment.
As usual, the major news media are largely silent on this proposed violation of the constitution that protects them.
Comments