If One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?

If one group of Legislators can approve legislation without voting on it, just 'deem it passed' and move on as has been suggested by Ms Nancy, what purpose does it serve to have the rest of Congress even in the building?If One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?I hope the Botox Witch is not delirious enough to think that the Slaughter Rule will pass muster with the American people. If they try that stunt there will be a constitutional challenge to it. Of course if something like that is allowed to stand then there is really no need for the "people's house".If One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?
Good point. They all need to be fired.



lpIf One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?I agree. I wish conservative congressman would just go home. C Street.If One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?
They have to make their arguments to the American people so that they'll be the majority after mid term elections. If the American people don't buy it then they'll remain the minority, if they do then the republicans will be representing us. That's the way the two party system works.If One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?Here's an analogy:

If it only takes a certain percentage of American voters in order to elect a president, what purpose does it serve to allow all the other people (who ultimately would vote for the losing candidate) to vote?



The reason for it is, we don't have crystal balls, we don't know in advance who or what will get the majority vote, or which people will vote for what.If One Group can pass Health legislation with no vote in Congress, what purpose does it serve to have the rest?
There is still a vote. The "Slaughter rule" is better known as "deem and pass" or "the self executing rule." Instead of voting directly for the bill, members vote the bill to be "deemed as passed." Then they can tell their constituents they never voted for the bill. Under republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, 30% of all rules were passed as "self executing." Under republican Speaker Denny Hastert, about 28% of all rules were passed as "self executing." Now that republicans are out of power, suddenly it is unconstitutional to use self executing rules?? The very same people now rending their garments about "deem and pass" were using it heavily a few years ago. How soon they forget!

See http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/…



"When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules."



----------- update -----------



@prusa1237: There already was a constitutional challenge to "deem and pass" for one of the approx 200 times the republicans used it. It was ruled constitutional. See http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/publi… and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio…

.
Kinda like passing the Patriot Act without anyone bothering to read it isn't it?