search
top

More on the Constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution

There’s been some more activity today on the issue of whether the Slaughter Rule for passing Health Care would be constitutional. ¬†Michael McConnell says it’s not constitutional in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, via Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. Based on this reading, which would indicate the House and Senate never actually plan to pass the same bill, I would agree it’s unconstitutional. I would think there has to be limits to House and Senate rules in so far as they aren’t delegating their role to the other body. For instance, if they create a rule that deems two bills to be passed with one vote, why not three? Four? Twelve? Certainly they can consolidate twelve bills into one bill, but can the House or Senate really have a rule that just deems any number of bills as “passed” even if there’s never been a vote? I think the answer to that has to be no, at least if the Constitutional role each body plays isn’t considered to be unconstitutionally delegated.

4 Responses to “More on the Constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution”

  1. David says:

    I think the basic issue here is that the Democrats have a fundamental lack of respect for the Constitution. They just don’t care.

  2. Sebastian says:

    Sadly, I don’t think that’s limited to the Democrats.

  3. ctdonath says:

    Reducto ad absurdum: under the premise of Slaugher’s Rule, the House could pass a bill deeming anything passed by the Senate is recognized as having passed the House, and all the Reps just go home having abdicated its role by simple majority.

  4. Heckler says:

    If you understand the difference between a “rule” and a “bill” (as defined by the Constitution) the answer to the question is simple.

top