Mark Levin to launch lawsuit if Dems use "Deem and Pass"

[cpwill]

Keep it coming and kill this thing every way you can.

remember, Dems, Don't Scare The Bear

Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan Justice Department, said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use an unconstitutional manuever to pass the Senate health care bill without actually having to vote on it.

...Levin, a former top attorney in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration who currently serves as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.

“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "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.”...

 

[danarhea]

Keep it coming and kill this thing every way you can.

remember, Dems, Don't Scare The Bear

Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan Justice Department, said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use an unconstitutional manuever to pass the Senate health care bill without actually having to vote on it.

...Levin, a former top attorney in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration who currently serves as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.

“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "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.”...

Here's the problem with it - Newt Gingrich used "deem and pass" more than 100 times. What Republicans are doing here reminds me of the old joke about the kid who killed his parents, then complained about how life was so unfair because he was an orphan.

 

[Cold Highway]

Isnt he a talk show host?

 

[j-mac]

Here's the problem with it - Newt Gingrich used "deem and pass" more than 100 times. What Republicans are doing here reminds me of the old joke about the kid who killed his parents, then complained about how life was so unfair because he was an orphan.

And what kinds of things did Newt use "deem and pass" for?


j-mac

 

[cpwill]

as i understand it, if congress voted to spend more than it took in, then it was "deemed" to have voted to deficit spend.


kind of sort of completely not like taking over 1/6th of the Economy.


even one of Nancy Pelosi's whips admits now that this is disengenious.

...Even one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor whips, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress....

Lynch, who serves as one of Pelosi’s key vote counters, said he also can’t support a proposed “deem and pass” procedure that would allow Democrats to vote to strip out controversial portions of the Senate bill and then “deem” that the entire package has passed without a second, direct vote. “It’s disingenuous,” said Lynch, who considers unfair a Senate provision to tack a surcharge on higher-end health plans. “It would really call into question the credibility of the House.”...

 

[Erod]

Here's the problem with it - Newt Gingrich used "deem and pass" more than 100 times.

Not on ANYTHING like this. Congress has never passed anything this big, period, let alone on some back-alley technicality.

 

[Zyphlin]

I do no like the "Deem and pass" scenario's regardless of what they are, and don't think they should be used. It seems unconstitutional and wrong. It may shock you that Rush Limbaugh said likewise on his show recently.

That said, to my knowledge I've not heard of any extremely controversial bills that have undergone this process previously? Does it make it right? Absolutely not. However I can understand not actively pursueing to bring legal action or fighting against it greatly.

To me it is like a person that gets given a person ten dimes instead of ten pennies by mistake in their change. If they knowingly keep it is it theft? Yes. Is it probably worth the time, expense, and resources to take legal action against that person for that "theft"? Probably not.

However, if someone was given ten $100's instead of ten $1's when they got change and had the same situation happen I'd imagine the likelihood of action being taken is greater. Why? Because suddenly the scope and cost benefit of the situation is greatly changed, making it more prudent to need and take action.

That's how I see this in regards to the legal side of it. Not in regard sto Republicans that are in congress upset about it but have used it previously, but those seeking to challenge it legally. Yes Republicans have used it before, so have Democrats (and democrats have sued over it on more minor bills to my understanding). However the size and scope of what its being used on this time is causing far more people to notice and take a closer look at it.

Just like finding your till is short $1,000 dollars as compared to $1 is likely to invoke a greatly different response and make you look at the situation far more closely.

 

[donsutherland1]

Keep it coming and kill this thing every way you can.

remember, Dems, Don't Scare The Bear

Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan Justice Department, said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to use an unconstitutional manuever to pass the Senate health care bill without actually having to vote on it.

...Levin, a former top attorney in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration who currently serves as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, reiterated that “no one can predict the outcome,” and he said he was not going to tip his hand by revealing too much of the legal strategy behind the lawsuit.

“What I’m trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won’t because we’re going to expose you,” Levin said.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "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.”...

Article I Section 7's reference to the Yeas and Nays deals mainly with overriding Presidential vetoes. As the pending health care legislation has not been vetoed, a recorded vote on the Senate's version of the health care legislation is not the only means by which it can be passed under House rules. The Yeas and Nays will be ordered for the self-executing rule as unanimous consent is not going to be accepted. That recorded vote will pass muster with Article I Section 7. In effect, it will be that recorded vote that amounts to the House's adoption of the Senate bill.

Even as I strongly oppose using a self-executing rule to advance the pending health care legislation, it should be noted that Article I Section 5 governs the constitutionality of such rules. Under that provision of the Constitution, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

As such, legal efforts aimed at the constitutionality of the health care legislation, should it pass, will need to focus on issues other than the self-executing rule that might be used to adopt it. Unseemly as it might appear, the House has the constitutional authority to devise its own rules for its own proceedings. Self-executing rules are just one example. Given Article I Section 5, I highly doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would take a case concerning the self-executing rule, much less undermine the separation of powers by injecting itself into the House's internal affairs.

 

[j-mac]

Still waiting for that answer on what Newt used 'deem and pass' on there dan.....I guess like all libs you just spew out what you hear from Olberman and run.


j-mac

 

[RightinNYC]

...standing?

 

[Crunch]

'Deeming' ditched: Democratic leaders on Saturday decided to abandon a controversial legislative mechanism that could have avoided a direct vote on the legislation. They will hold an up-or-down vote on the reform plan that the Senate has already passed.

Health care latest: Dems still chasing votes - CNN.com

About 1/2 way down the page.

 

[Zyphlin]

Good on them at least with not doing something so amazingly unprecedented. If only the same held true for the Senate

 

[cpwill]

Article I Section 7's reference to the Yeas and Nays deals mainly with overriding Presidential vetoes.

i've heard this argument a couple of times; which is odd. I wonder who out there is putting it out to you guys.

anywho, article I section 7 reads:

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.