Although It may be OK, or may not.
READ.....

The “Slaughter solution” goes something like this: the president would have to sign into law the Senate version of the bill, the House would vote on “fixes” to the bill and if these “fixes” passed the House, it would “deem” the Senate bill passed, the Senate would then have to reconcile the House “fixes” and incorporate them in the final bill, all based on a promise that they would do so. This would allow the House Democrats who are in tough re-election campaigns to claim that they never voted for the unpopular Senate bill and provide them cover in case the Senate did not pass their “fixes,” allowing the Senate bill to be the final version of the bill.

  According to Nancy Pelosi, this is an attractive option because it will protect House members politically who are unwilling to support the bill publically, claiming that it is “ more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know.” In other words, if they pass the bill she is hoping that people aren’t paying attention to HOW they passed it, they just will know that the bill passed. She is hoping that people are not paying attention to their actions. She continues by saying she also likes this option, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

  That should tell us all that we need to know not only about the Senate bill’s popularity and flaws, but also about the mindset of the house leadership. She knows that this bill is unpopular, she knows that the American people are opposed to the bill, yet she is willing to stoop to this level to pass it. And she thinks that the American people are so stupid that once the bill passes and is law that we will not realize that by not voting directly for or against this bill that they actually voted for it. I can’t even begin to describe how obnoxious and arrogant I find the Speaker’s position on this issue and her disdain for the intelligence of the American people.

  Since it has become public knowledge about this nefarious plot to pass healthcare reform without voting on it, the question has been raised about whether this is constitutional or not. On the surface it would seem that there is no way that this can be constitutional. This question is based on Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution, which states that the “Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays.” But that language follows the language that describes the process for overriding a presidential veto, does this apply to legislation that is sent to the president in the first place, or just to legislation that has already been vetoed by the president? I am not sure. And then there is Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution which states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

   It is based on this section that I have never questioned the constitutionality of using reconciliation to pass healthcare reform, even though I disagree with the notion. If the houses have the means to determine their own rules, the Senate must have the right to determine how many votes it takes to pass legislation. Does this not give the House the right to pass a bill without voting on it?

  So while the constitutionality of this maneuver is up in the air– it may or may not be constitutional– there is one thing that we know for sure; this is an unscrupulous, insidious, un-American frontal assault on what a representative republic is supposed to stand for and the American people should not stand for it.

Sad but true CWI.

The health control bill is The NEW deal Part 2.

Why wont they put in tort reform...ill tell you why there will be NO more lawsuits period..........the appointed official  will decide who gets to sue and who cant.......and ill bet no one can.