Constitutionality of the "Slaughter Option"

[Brandon H]

Courts have ruled that it is constitutional. In fact, Pelosi was suing in that case, arguing that it was not constitutional. So, in this case, the courts have literally told Pelosi that Deem and Pass is constitutional. 

Well, that case is a little different - that had to do with a bill with a typo in it (that was my understanding, at least).  So, while I don't think that case is a perfect precedent fit (correct me if I'm wrong), I agree that it is constitutional.

I remember the state of Arkansas passed a bill that left out the word "not" giving the bill the opposite of what was intended and what the legislatures thought they were voting on. They had to reopen session and pass the correct bill.
---
This is wrong if the Democrats go this route and if the Republicans did it before, they were wrong then. Everything is wrong when the other guy does it but it's ok when you do it.

[Brittain33]

What idiots in Dem leadership decided this was a top priority? They have wasted their majority on useless legislation and are going to throw it away over an awful bill. Thanks Democrats, just don't cry when Specter goes down in flames.

HCR is well worth it, even in the form it is taking. This bill will make a big difference in the lives of millions of Americans and reform some massive injustices. It's worth the majority.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Courts have ruled that it is constitutional. In fact, Pelosi was suing in that case, arguing that it was not constitutional. So, in this case, the courts have literally told Pelosi that Deem and Pass is constitutional. 

Well, that case is a little different - that had to do with a bill with a typo in it (that was my understanding, at least).  So, while I don't think that case is a perfect precedent fit (correct me if I'm wrong), I agree that it is constitutional.

I remember the state of Arkansas passed a bill that left out the word "not" giving the bill the opposite of what was intended and what the legislatures thought they were voting on. They had to reopen session and pass the correct bill.
---
This is wrong if the Democrats go this route and if the Republicans did it before, they were wrong then. Everything is wrong when the other guy does it but it's ok when you do it.

According to this (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf), it never mentions using the self-executing rule to pass a bill, only pass amendments to bills, or consider it passed by a committee.

[J. J.]

Courts have ruled that it is constitutional. In fact, Pelosi was suing in that case, arguing that it was not constitutional. So, in this case, the courts have literally told Pelosi that Deem and Pass is constitutional. 

Well, that case is a little different - that had to do with a bill with a typo in it (that was my understanding, at least).  So, while I don't think that case is a perfect precedent fit (correct me if I'm wrong), I agree that it is constitutional.

I remember the state of Arkansas passed a bill that left out the word "not" giving the bill the opposite of what was intended and what the legislatures thought they were voting on. They had to reopen session and pass the correct bill.
---
This is wrong if the Democrats go this route and if the Republicans did it before, they were wrong then. Everything is wrong when the other guy does it but it's ok when you do it.

According to this (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf), it never mentions using the self-executing rule to pass a bill, only pass amendments to bills, or consider it passed by a committee.

I think this is being contemplated to use for amendments to a previously adopted bill.

I think the complexity needed to do it, really creates a major political problem.