Passing health care reform by hook and by crook
[NOTE: I’m not planning to watch this thing live on TV; don’t want to start throwing heavy objects. But I will keep up with it periodically as the day wears on.]
By the title of this post you can see that I have virtually no doubt that health care reform will pass today (although I would dearly love to be wrong). For quite some time I have felt that, even if Pelosi/Obama didn’t quite have the votes yet, or know exactly how it would be accomplished, it would be done—if they had to use every trick in the book and invent a few besides. But once the vote was actually scheduled I became about as certain as a person can be of such a thing in this uncertain world.
And so it goes. And so they have. And so it will.
The details matter because they show us what the Democrats are capable of: even if ploys such as the Slaughter solution are not used in the end, it seems pretty clear that they would have been employed if needed. We are in a purely pragmatic and strategic world here.
Stupak will be placated one way or another (if he is needed, that is; if not needed he will be allowed to vote “no”). Right now it appears that Stupak may be in the process of changing his vote to “yes” by means of President Obama issuing an executive order that specifies there will be no federal funding for abortion in the HCR bill.
That strikes me as odd on two counts. First, why would Stupak believe that Obama wouldn’t just issue that order, and then another a day or two later that takes it back, once the vote is over? It’s not as though the President has shown a marked proclivity to stick to his word.
Of course, the answer to that may be that Stupak doesn’t much care—he just wants temporary cover to justify his own vote “yes,” no matter what ends up happening on the merits. If the deal ends up falling through, he can say he was duped but acted in good faith to protect his principles—and perhaps someone somewhere will actually believe him. I doubt the pro-life folks will swallow it, however (see this).
Second (and please forgive me for the quaint attention I’m about to pay to what is fast becoming an archaic and outdated concern—constitutionality and separation of powers) would this be legal? If so, I’m sure previous presidents would have loved to have known that they too could have overridden/re-interpreted any provision of an act of Congress merely by issuing an executive order saying voila! It does not exist! (And no, this executive order as described would not be the equivalent of a signing statement.)
What’s more, even if Obama could perform that particular magic trick, what would happen during reconciliation (assuming, of course, that there ever is a reconciliation process for this bill)? The Senate has a majority that seems to want federal funding for abortion, and at least does not want to forbid it outright. If Senators refuse to incorporate a provision banning federal abortion funding in the new Senate bill, does Obama then issue a new executive order banning it once again? And then what happens when the whole thing goes back to the House? Or does none of that happen, and this present bill gets signed into law, and those House members who think it will be amended just get thrown under a waiting fleet of buses in time-honored Pelosi/Obama tradition? Or will it all be “fixed” by subsequent bills?
And what of Obama’s and Pelosi’s far left supporters, who will be none too happy with this executive order? And what of all those right-to-life Representatives who told Pelosi a while back that they would refuse to vote for the present HCR bill if it contains Stupak language? Would they be likely to vote for it knowing about Obama’s contemplated executive order? Will the bill and the order occur simultaneously? If not, which will come first? And if the bill comes first, why would Stupak vote for it on a mere promise of Obama’s executive order, and why would the anti-Stupak faction vote for it with the threat of the same executive order hanging over their heads?
I must confess I have no idea how this would all wash, but in that respect I bet I’m not all that different from everyone else on the planet. We are in uncharted waters here—in fact, this entire administration and Congress represents uncharted and dangerous waters for America.
Sadly I agree with your conclusion. Rather than watch this travesty I am going to spent the day with my daughter and put it out of my mind.
And starting tomorrow I am going to put whatever energy and money I can spare towards unseating each and every one of the filthy dogs who supported this bill. Including the President. I would venture that i am not alone in these sentiments. The will NOT be missed.
“I’m sure previous presidents would have loved to have known that they too could have overridden any provision of an act of Congress merely by issuing an executive order saying voila! It does not exist!”
Yeah. How can it be Constitutional? The Executive branch is the administrative branch of government.
The Legislative branch decides how much to spend and on what.
If the President signs and executive order, that in effect says, “Well, the relevant federal agency can’t spend money on that”, then he’s the one deciding what the government will spend money on and he’s clearly abrogating powers to the Executive branch that Constitutionally, are clearly the prerogative of the Legislative branch.
Furthermore, the SCOTUS can/will weigh in on this issue because deciding Constitutional matters of Presidential over-reach is well established precedent for the Judicial branch.
Presumably, Stupak knows this, as it’s POLI SCI 101 but if he doesn’t know it, hasn’t he just demonstrated his unfitness for the position he holds?
Neo, check out the bias and BS in this article from Aol news. Those unsubsantiated accusations are rediculous:
http://www.aolnews.com/healthcare/article/raucous-ugly-build-up-to-house-health-care-vote/19407962
Geoffrey Britain: Stupak isn’t that dumb, but I believe he wants to present the fiction that he believes this is a fix, to provide cover for his yes vote. In other words, he appears to believe that his pro-life supporters are that dumb.
What Stupak actually does depends on whether Pelosi needs him or not. If she doesn’t need him, then she and Obama can drop the whole thing, and Stupak can vote no.
“Zombie” over at PajamasMedia has an article on the real reason that most Americans are opposed to socialized health care. It’s unfortunately not safe for work because of one picture. But then, the truth is no longer safe for work in lots of places . . .
The supreme, transcendant, crystalline irony of all ironies: if abortion had been legal in 1960, we wouldn’t have Obama here now.
I wonder if Obama has ever reflected on the obvious fact that he was the cause of a shotgun marriage.
Any way you cut it, Stupak is obviously intellectually dishonest. Obama’s record in support of abortion is well known to all. Every blue dog that votes yes will prove that there is no such thing as a fiscally responsible Democrat.
Each of us that are serious about this dire situation must pledge our efforts and financial support to throw these bums out and shift the GOP back to a more conservative agenda that upholds individual citizen’s rights and our Constitution.
Maybe that’s why he seems to hate the world so much.
Or at least he appears to hate happy, well-adjusted, competent, productive people.
I think, or hope at least, that Zombie is wrong. He (she?) certainly doesn’t list any of the reasons I don’t want this bill to pass.
We share costs and blame under the current system and even though we don’t really know what’s in the bill, it’s not going to change that.
And that’s the real reason so many people are opposed to the bill — we don’t know what’s in it and suspect that those voting on it don’t know either.
Zombie just wanted to dump a load on people he doesn’t like or respect.
Geoffrey Britain March 21st, 2010 at 1:16 pm
“If the President signs an executive order, that in effect says, “Well, the relevant federal agency can’t spend money on that”, then he’s the one deciding what the government will spend money on and he’s clearly abrogating powers to the Executive branch that Constitutionally, are clearly the prerogative of the Legislative branch.”
===========================
And your point is? This is the Constitutional Law Professor President who decided the Government can take over Chrysler and GM (and also fire GM’s manager), and elevate their UNIONS over primary bondholders in the distribution of assets.
I’ll betcha $50-billion-bucks-that-I-don’t-have that this guy and his backers have thoroughly researched case law regarding Presidential decisions and actions, and that they have absolute confidence that SCOTUS has no grounds to reverse or set aside ANYTHING they’ve done. I’ll bet my life on it. (And by George, we are, aren’t we?)
I think, or hope at least, that Zombie is wrong.
I think Zombie’s absolutely correct, as far as she goes. I’d go a bit further and emphasize that the next step, after individuals playing nanny, is the state bringing its power to bear to play nanny big time.
Thought experiment: suppose we had universal auto insurance. Every teen-aged boy in America would be thrilled. See ya on the airport road!
Zombie just wanted to dump a load on people he doesn’t like or respect.
And just to be clear, I don’t respect those people either. People have a right to be stupid, and some exercise that right. As long as the consequences redound to them, no problem here.
People that buy cell phones, spinner rims, ipods and big screen tv’s before buying health insurance aren’t uninsured. They simply choose to insure their lifestyle instead of their health. While counting on all the frugal and responsible folks to just buy it for them. Social justice my ass.
Paraphrasing Hermann Gé¶ring, when I hear about social justice I reach for my Luger.
“I’ll betcha $50-billion-bucks-that-I-don’t-have” A_Nonny_Mouse
Well. I’ll see your $50billion and raise you $50billion… that I don’t have either!
My point Nonny was that regardless of Obama et al’s intent to disregard the Constitution, the SCOTUS will find that a Presidential executive order, clearly and illegally attempting to abrogate power exclusively given to the Legislative branch is unconstitutional and will be struck down.
SCOTUS has ruled on the other branches overstepping their Constitutional boundary many times before, it’s well within their purview.
Perhaps more significant is neo’s pointing out that Stupak has to know this and is disingenuously pretending otherwise, as political cover to change his vote to yes, if the party needs him too.
Which makes him an unprincipled hypocrite and unworthy of the office he holds. Of course, at least 75% of the members of Congress are unworthy of the office but tragically, quite reflective of the country.
The Zombie article hits on a good point. This proliferation of nanny statism absolutely changes the outlook and personalities of the people. Watch the movie “The Lives of Others” about East Germany nanny staters for a great example.
Theres a reason people in the south are more apt to open doors and wave at total strangers passing by than what you’ll see in the north. I believe you’ll find the answer in which one has the most exposure to the nanny state’s step child, the labor union.
I was at a TEA Party demonstration against HCR yesterday. Tempers are frayed. People are unhappy and fearful. The Administration and the dems in Congress are showing their true colors. And even those who were apathetic are beginning to get the message.
We must push for as many constitutional challenges as necessary to delay this poorly wriitten, misbegotten bill. We must also rise up against Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, card check, and any of the other progressive measures these dumbocrats try to push next. Fortunately, they will keep the pressure on and that will lead ever rising tempers, which can mean a tidal wave at the polls in November.
We must support with finances and deeds any candidates who stand for smaller government, less government spending, and pro-business tax policies. And, hopefully, enough new fiscal conservatives can be elected to Congress to repeal the HCR bill.
The war between those who want bigger and more intrusive government and those who want smaller government and more self reliance is joined. This is just the first big battle. Our aim must be to win the war. The first stepp is to win at the ballot box in November.
J.J.,
You are quite right. I’m gearing up. Well, I’ve been gearing up. What a sad day for our great and dear country. This is going to take a helluva portion of grit, my friends. These wizards are just getting started, and they’re not going to back off no matter how many of the American people are against them. I once thought there was some reason why this lot don’t care how unpopular they might be come November. I’m afraid for what they may have in mind about that.
I’m not wishing to be tacky, really I’m not. But I can’t help remembering: Huxley thought Obama had lost everything, including health care, months ago, and was doomed. Others of us were unpersuaded, expecting something like these strong-arm contortions at the last. I keep wondering what Huxley’s thinking now.
My husband just mused that maybe Huxley was a troll after all, and all along. 🙁