The use of “deem and pass” was narrowly averted when two Democrats sitting on the House Rules Committee voted against the use of the “Slaughter Solution” that was intended to forward the Senate Bill through the House of Representative without requiring members to actually vote on the Bill. While the deem and pass rule has been around since the 1930’s, it has never been used to forward legislation of this magnitude through the House without an actual vote. Deem and pass was dubbed the “Slaughter Solution” after Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee that proposed its use to move the Healthcare Bill out of the House.
Louise Slaughter, that ironically represents Erie and Niagara Counties in New York, expected fellow Democrats on the Rules Committee to climb into their own barrels and follow her over the “falls” by approving the use of this legislative trick. Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and another, yet unnamed Democrat on the Rules Committee realized that this was tantamount to political suicide and voted against the measure. This reduced the vote in favor of deem and pass to the slightest margin of seven for and six against, making it’s use politically dangerous as each one would be seen as the deciding vote in their own district.
America may be a diverse culture with a vast chasm between the political ideologies of the people but they all agree that our government should act with honor. To use this rule would be seen as a corruption of the legitimate process of government. It’s true that deem and pass has been used by both Parties over the past eighty years and pretty much for the same reasons; to pass unpopular or costly legislation while still providing more cowardly members of Congress the ability to go home and tell their constituents they didn’t vote for the Bill. This time, the healthcare bill is so widely despised and has been so closely followed that even deem and pass would not provide the cover that nervous Democrats had hoped for. In fact, once the light of day had been shown on this process, the American people issued a thunderous rejection of the apparent misuse of power so loud that even the Rules Committee thought twice about the consequences.
What I found disturbing is the media’s ready acceptance of this incredibly deceitful process. Except for right wing TV and talk radio, the main stream press had no problem with using deem and pass; citing the historical use of the process. I said I found it disturbing, but does not mean I found it surprising. After all, there are many versions of deem and pass that can be found all over America. The press itself is guilty of similar practices; writing entire stories based solely on damaging quotes by unreliable sources. Since they were merely quoting someone else, they could run with a story that would politically hobble someone they considered an enemy without actually having to bear the responsibility of slandering them. “Hey…I didn’t say it…I just reported on someone that did!” Of course if the subject screamed loud enough, had proof that the accusations were false or threatened a law suit, the press could always bury a single sentence retraction in a rarely read section of the paper that would satisfy the legal world that they corrected the misstatement.
A perfect example of the use of a deem and pass look alike can be found in the global warming / climate change debate. The UN climate panel relied heavily on reports issued by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia; the same CRU that has recently been exposed willingly manipulating climate data, thwarting the release of information under the British equivalent to the Freedom of information act and conspiring with other global warming proponents to hide information that was contradictory to their claims. The UN climate panel had also created alarming climate reports warning of catastrophic consequences if CO2 levels were not drastically reduced. As it turns out, the UN climate panel used an article about melting glacial ice from a rock climbing magazine and a non-professional paper on the subject authored by a college student. When confronted with these damaging facts, the UN climate panel shrugged it off saying that they apologize for the errors but there is still overwhelming evidence to support climate change (and the U.N.’s global money grab to fight it) but they would conduct further study into the materials they use for their reports. In other words, they deem the crisis is real and passed the blame.
I wonder if I can use deem and pass myself? I could pay sales tax on a new home entertainment system and “deem” that my Federal taxes have been paid as well. No, that wouldn’t work because the Federal government really doesn’t like competition where criminal acts are concerned. I could have a sugar free coke with six slices of pizza and “deem” that I am on a diet or perhaps I could throw out one of the cigarettes in my newest carton of 200 and “deem” that I am cutting back. Yes, we could all use some version of deem and pass but somehow, it just doesn’t feel right to an honest person and it shouldn’t feel right to our elected officials.
Congressional procedure has become so corrupted by lawyers and modern politicians that nearly anything seems possible and the only justification they offer these days is “Well, they did it!” Have things descended that low? Has the Congress become so corrupt that they no longer think about whether or not it is the right thing to do but instead rationalize their actions on what someone else has already gotten away with? If that is true, then what will the future hold? Will we leave morality out of the equation and clone humans to use their bits and pieces for organ transplants or medical experiments? After all, what makes us human? We have already cloned chickens and sheep so cloning is possible and can it really be murder if these unwilling donors were never born? Impossible? Well, the abortion argument has already cheapened our conception of human existence and turned that into a question of when is a person really a person? What would happen if lawmakers began to deem people “non-people”?
As it stands now, our society’s view on the rights of the unborn are left entirely up to the woman that is carrying the unborn. The right to choose is based on the sovereignty of one’s own body and those that choose life have in essence, chosen to deem their unborn child a person worthy of protection. While pro-choice advocates fear that a woman’s right to choose abortion is threatened by the religious right, what they should fear more is the radical left. John Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar” has already weighed in on the right to choose and it is truly frightening. In the 1970’s, Holdren was one of the eco-kooks that believed the greatest threat to the earth was the explosion of human population. In a book Holdren co-authored with Anne H. Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” the pair proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization to stave off an impending overpopulation crisis. Holdren and his Hench-woman actually went as far as suggesting retroactive abortion where children below the age of two that faced severe physical or mental disabilities could be “deemed” to be unviable and in fact, unborn since they were incapable of life independent of special means. Children deemed “unborn” could be disposed of neatly and legally within the framework of existing abortion legislation once they were lawfully considered unborn.
Oh yes, there are number of ways that deem and pass have made it beyond our legislature and into everyday life. It is the ways that it could be used in the future that should make rational people very nervous indeed. Just because the Congress didn’t have the nerve to use it this time does not mean it won’t rear its ugly head later when the public is too occupied with something else to notice. After all, that’s how it was used before and with great success. Whatever the political landscape is after the 2010 and 2012 elections, it is clear that the Democrats have provided us with some valuable insights. These devious rules and procedures must be routed out with strong enough language that they can never be used again. While the Party in control may be tempted to used the same rules to move their agenda forward, those temptations must be resisted and these rules must be forever retired if we are ever to return to a lawful, honorable and pure constitutional Republic.
Paul
Louise Slaughter, that ironically represents Erie and Niagara Counties in New York, expected fellow Democrats on the Rules Committee to climb into their own barrels and follow her over the “falls” by approving the use of this legislative trick. Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and another, yet unnamed Democrat on the Rules Committee realized that this was tantamount to political suicide and voted against the measure. This reduced the vote in favor of deem and pass to the slightest margin of seven for and six against, making it’s use politically dangerous as each one would be seen as the deciding vote in their own district.
America may be a diverse culture with a vast chasm between the political ideologies of the people but they all agree that our government should act with honor. To use this rule would be seen as a corruption of the legitimate process of government. It’s true that deem and pass has been used by both Parties over the past eighty years and pretty much for the same reasons; to pass unpopular or costly legislation while still providing more cowardly members of Congress the ability to go home and tell their constituents they didn’t vote for the Bill. This time, the healthcare bill is so widely despised and has been so closely followed that even deem and pass would not provide the cover that nervous Democrats had hoped for. In fact, once the light of day had been shown on this process, the American people issued a thunderous rejection of the apparent misuse of power so loud that even the Rules Committee thought twice about the consequences.
What I found disturbing is the media’s ready acceptance of this incredibly deceitful process. Except for right wing TV and talk radio, the main stream press had no problem with using deem and pass; citing the historical use of the process. I said I found it disturbing, but does not mean I found it surprising. After all, there are many versions of deem and pass that can be found all over America. The press itself is guilty of similar practices; writing entire stories based solely on damaging quotes by unreliable sources. Since they were merely quoting someone else, they could run with a story that would politically hobble someone they considered an enemy without actually having to bear the responsibility of slandering them. “Hey…I didn’t say it…I just reported on someone that did!” Of course if the subject screamed loud enough, had proof that the accusations were false or threatened a law suit, the press could always bury a single sentence retraction in a rarely read section of the paper that would satisfy the legal world that they corrected the misstatement.
A perfect example of the use of a deem and pass look alike can be found in the global warming / climate change debate. The UN climate panel relied heavily on reports issued by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia; the same CRU that has recently been exposed willingly manipulating climate data, thwarting the release of information under the British equivalent to the Freedom of information act and conspiring with other global warming proponents to hide information that was contradictory to their claims. The UN climate panel had also created alarming climate reports warning of catastrophic consequences if CO2 levels were not drastically reduced. As it turns out, the UN climate panel used an article about melting glacial ice from a rock climbing magazine and a non-professional paper on the subject authored by a college student. When confronted with these damaging facts, the UN climate panel shrugged it off saying that they apologize for the errors but there is still overwhelming evidence to support climate change (and the U.N.’s global money grab to fight it) but they would conduct further study into the materials they use for their reports. In other words, they deem the crisis is real and passed the blame.
I wonder if I can use deem and pass myself? I could pay sales tax on a new home entertainment system and “deem” that my Federal taxes have been paid as well. No, that wouldn’t work because the Federal government really doesn’t like competition where criminal acts are concerned. I could have a sugar free coke with six slices of pizza and “deem” that I am on a diet or perhaps I could throw out one of the cigarettes in my newest carton of 200 and “deem” that I am cutting back. Yes, we could all use some version of deem and pass but somehow, it just doesn’t feel right to an honest person and it shouldn’t feel right to our elected officials.
Congressional procedure has become so corrupted by lawyers and modern politicians that nearly anything seems possible and the only justification they offer these days is “Well, they did it!” Have things descended that low? Has the Congress become so corrupt that they no longer think about whether or not it is the right thing to do but instead rationalize their actions on what someone else has already gotten away with? If that is true, then what will the future hold? Will we leave morality out of the equation and clone humans to use their bits and pieces for organ transplants or medical experiments? After all, what makes us human? We have already cloned chickens and sheep so cloning is possible and can it really be murder if these unwilling donors were never born? Impossible? Well, the abortion argument has already cheapened our conception of human existence and turned that into a question of when is a person really a person? What would happen if lawmakers began to deem people “non-people”?
As it stands now, our society’s view on the rights of the unborn are left entirely up to the woman that is carrying the unborn. The right to choose is based on the sovereignty of one’s own body and those that choose life have in essence, chosen to deem their unborn child a person worthy of protection. While pro-choice advocates fear that a woman’s right to choose abortion is threatened by the religious right, what they should fear more is the radical left. John Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar” has already weighed in on the right to choose and it is truly frightening. In the 1970’s, Holdren was one of the eco-kooks that believed the greatest threat to the earth was the explosion of human population. In a book Holdren co-authored with Anne H. Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” the pair proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization to stave off an impending overpopulation crisis. Holdren and his Hench-woman actually went as far as suggesting retroactive abortion where children below the age of two that faced severe physical or mental disabilities could be “deemed” to be unviable and in fact, unborn since they were incapable of life independent of special means. Children deemed “unborn” could be disposed of neatly and legally within the framework of existing abortion legislation once they were lawfully considered unborn.
Oh yes, there are number of ways that deem and pass have made it beyond our legislature and into everyday life. It is the ways that it could be used in the future that should make rational people very nervous indeed. Just because the Congress didn’t have the nerve to use it this time does not mean it won’t rear its ugly head later when the public is too occupied with something else to notice. After all, that’s how it was used before and with great success. Whatever the political landscape is after the 2010 and 2012 elections, it is clear that the Democrats have provided us with some valuable insights. These devious rules and procedures must be routed out with strong enough language that they can never be used again. While the Party in control may be tempted to used the same rules to move their agenda forward, those temptations must be resisted and these rules must be forever retired if we are ever to return to a lawful, honorable and pure constitutional Republic.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment