Demon Pass

Posted on 03/16/2010 at 9:48 am by Bob Cesca

The Republicans are predictably spastic about the House passing both the Senate bill and the sidecar in one vote — the “deem and pass” procedure. To recap, the procedure basically allows the Senate bill to pass the House if the sidecar passes the House. In other words, if a congressman votes “yes” on the sidecar, they’re also approving the Senate bill.

So what. I don’t see what the big deal is. They’re still voting, and if they want to vote against the Senate bill, they can vote “no” on both. At this point, there are so many votes on the record anyway, I can’t imagine that merging two votes into one will make or break political fortunes.

By the way, Kelly O’Donnell told Chuck Todd this morning that “deem and pass” defies “reality.” Uh-huh. It’s a rule that can be used. They’re not making shit up. This is just as real in terms of parliamentary rules as, say, the filibuster and cloture.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    Bob, I caught Lawrence O’Donnell talking about this on Morning Joe this morning as well, and he was a little dumbfounded. I don’t know if it’s an actual rule or a rule that the Rules Committee just made up to make it work.The problem I see is that they’re technically voting on changes to a law that doesn’t yet exist. Doesn’t that strike you as a little strange?

  • Alan Fors

    Carl, from the WaPo article Bob linked to:

    …The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

    It wasn’t just made up.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    I loved the WaPo’s framing on this: it’s a normal procedure but it’s never been used for legislation “this momentous.” As if any legislation of this momentousness has been passed at all in 40 years.

  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    Thanks, Alan. Just read that myself. I get it and reminded myself why I don’t normally watch Morning Joe, although I must say I’m disappointed in Lawrence O’Donnell, because he’s the one who gave me the impression that this wasn’t a legal procedure.I know the bill has to be passed and then fixed, but I don’t like the way it’s being framed.

    “It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” [Pelosi] said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. “But I like it,” she said, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

    I know what she meant, but technically you are voting for the Senate bill if you pass the fixes, therefore “deeming” the Senate bill passed without voting on it.If it’s legal, fine. I think I’m more worried about how this is going to be spun in the echo chamber. Not that it would make a difference anyway.

  • vyccan

    @Broadway C:Here is an entry that seems to clarify the ‘legality’ of the deem and pass proposition in the HCR issue.http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2010/3/16/2185/-Stupid-headline-tricks

  • Jack G.

    The big deal is this; it’s against the Constitution. The Constitution requires an actual vote, with yeas and nays recorded. Here is the verbage:US Constitution- Article 1 Section 7 says in part,”Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. CFor emphasis-”But in ALL such Cases the Votes of BOTH Houses SHALL BE DETERMINED by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”The courts would throw the “law” out, because it wouldn’t be a law at all. Further, nobody would be required to follow a “law” that isn’t really a law. The public outrage would make Watergate look like an elementary school birthday party. This would be political suicide.

  • Ref

    But! It’s been used repeatedly by both majorities for years. I love how the wingnuts want separate rules when something is “momentous.”

  • Bull Schmitt

    One consideration is that you have five Supreme Court Justices that just decided “Citizens United” on strict constitutional grounds.They aren’t afraid of judicial activism for conservative ends, and they aren’t afraid of overturning long-standing precedents, even on a partisan 5-4 ruling.If it were up to me, I’d take two votes on this one.