Yesterday FOX News Special Report interviewed President Barack Obama about the process for passing the President’s controversial and unpopular health care proposal. Fox’s Bret Baier asked some pointed questions to see if the President supported or would even talk about the controversial “Slaughter Rule” being considered by the House to pass Obamacare. The President would not directly answer repeated questions about a potentially unconstitutional Deem and Pass rule, but he seemed to tacitly support the idea.
There is no precedent for legislation of this scale to be jammed through Congress by using a deeming resolution in concert with a reconciliation measure. Liberal leaders in the House argue that because Republicans used this potentially unconstitutional procedure in the past, they should be allowed to do so now on a much larger scale. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” This procedure, on it’s face, seems to violate the letter of the constitution.
The President was asked by Bret Baier about the Slaughter Rule:
FOX News Reporter Bret Baier: So you support the Deem and Pass Rule?
President Barack Obama: What I am saying is whatever they end up voting on, and I hope it is going to be sometime this week, it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal. And that’s what matters. And that’s what people are going to judge this on.
The President seemed to abide by Congressman Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) advice to avoid talking about the process. Obama would not directly answer this question, but seemed to tacitly endorse the potentially unconstitutional strategy with his statement that he hoped for a vote “sometime this week.” The President does not seem troubled by the constitutional concerns of the Slaughter Rule strategy. The Wall Street Journal Op Ed agrees with the argument that this controversial procedure is unprecedented because never before has Congress passed a comprehensive reform bill using this tactic. Baier pressed the President:
Baier: Monday in Ohio, you called for courage in this health care debate. At the same time, Pelosi was saying this to reporters about the Deem and Pass rule, “I like it, this scenario, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” Is that the type of courage you are talking about?
Obama: Well, here is what’s taking place. We both know what is going on. You have got a Senate bill that was passed that had provisions that needed to be changed. Right. People were concerned about the fix that only fixed Nebraska and didn’t fix the rest of the States. Now a lot of the members of the House legitimately say, we want to vote on a package as the President has proposed that has those fixes embedded in them. Now that may mean that they have to sequence the votes, but the ultimate vote they are taking is whether they believe in the proposal that I have put forward.
Baier seemed to be trying to get the President to condemn Members of Congress for dodging a direct vote and showing no courage in structuring a vote that would allow members to claim that they never voted directly for the Senate passed version of Obamacare while that same legislation would be deemed passed by the House and sent to the President for his signature. Pelosi’s intent is to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill seems to be a violation of the spirit if not the clear language of the Constitution. The President has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, as have members of Congress, they need to put more thought into upholding that oath during this contentious and divisive process.
In 2009, Democrats chose to proceed with a health-care bill under the regular order – that is, they sought to pass the legislation under normal House and Senate rules. They did not put together a budget reconciliation bill with health care in it, something that could have passed the Senate with a simple majority vote. They conceded that such an approach would likely produce a flawed product, as many non-budgetary provisions in a health-care plan would not survive the reconciliation process. And so they decided to try and pass a bill without resorting to reconciliation, even though they knew they would need sixty votes in the Senate to succeed. It worked. They passed a bill in the House in November, and a somewhat different version in the Senate in December.
Then came Scott Brown. His stunning election to the Senate on January 19 upended the Democrats’ end-game. They were going to work out the differences between the House and Senate-passed bills in January and proceed to pass an agreed-upon version in both chambers as expeditiously as possible. But that plan was contingent on getting sixty votes again in the Senate. With Brown’s election, Senate Republicans increased their numbers from forty to forty-one, thus forcing Democrats to find at least one Republican Senator to support their final bill.
For the past two months, the White House and Democrats in Congress have been weaving ever-more complicated legislative webs all with the express intent of avoiding at all costs any need to negotiate with the now slightly enlarged Senate minority. In effect, what Democratic leaders want to do is – at the very end of the legislative process – switch from regular order to a reconciliation process in order to avoid having to deal seriously with any elected Republicans.
But it’s become increasingly clear that the Democratic scheming and maneuvering necessary to pull off such a high-wire act has created a web of entanglements that could very well doom passage of the entire effort.
In particular, there now appear to be two huge hurdles standing directly in the way of a plan to jam a bill through in the coming days.
First, there is the matter of the liberal abortion provisions in the Senate bill. As the Catholic Bishops conference has noted the Senate-passed bill includes several provisions that would allow taxpayer funding of elective abortions. Consequently, the Bishops opposed passage of that bill when it was considered in the Senate, and now oppose its passage by the House. The problem for House Democrats is that every version of the end-game they are now considering is predicated on having the House take up the Senate bill and pass it unchanged for presidential signature.
That is entirely unacceptable to the Catholic Bishops. They oppose House passage of the Senate’s pro-abortion health bill. Period. And their opposition hasn’t come with procedural loopholes that would let members off the hook if they promised to pass a fix separately. That would be fool’s bargain, and the Bishops know it. So pro-life House Democrats, led by Congressman Bart Stupak, really have no choice here. They can’t support the Senate bill unless they want to be known for supporting the most pro-abortion bill ever considered in Congress. Their only real option is to force House leaders to amend the Senate bill before passing it to include strong restrictions on funding of abortion. Yes, that would mean the bill would have to go back through the Senate again before going to the president, but so be it. That’s not the Bishops’ problem. It would mean the president and the Democrats would have to really negotiate to get some Republican support, which is of course the norm for sweeping and important legislation.
This post originally appeared at National Review Online.