This'n'That; March 17th["Geeze-Louise" McIntosh Rodham Slaughter's Rule]

Slaughter Shreds Constitution!!
   "Geeze Louise" McIntosh Rodham Slaughter very likely has never seen a copy of The United States Constitution--let alone, read it!!  Besides her ignorance of the provisions of the aforementioned document, her dementia is far enough advanced to foster the utopian dream that immense power can bring a failing mind.
   Having failed to be of ANY HELP to Monroe County [NY--part of Slaughter's district] Executive Maggy Brooks with their shared $230Million monument--Reniassance Square in downtown Rochester, N.Y., she's casting about for another piece of crap to memorialize her name.  "RenSquare"  failed to garner much public support, other than those who wanted a new theater to watch their hoity-toity films and plays.  Slaughter seems to also be "on the losing end" of the high speed rail link from Buffalo to Albany, another federal fiasco which will NEVER WORK without further, expensive, unaffordable,  continuing federal subsidies.
   This latest "twisting" of the Constitution to support the "Clown Prince," Fluffy obama, has to be the lowest, darkest of accomplishments of that carpetbagger from Kentucky!!  She wants to write "a rule" which will affectively state that to vote in support of this "rule" is to have voted to support obamaCare.  The final version hasn't even been written yet!!!   Ms McIntosh Rodham Slaughter is completely ignoring Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution which requires that "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."  The Slaughter bullshit:

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor. In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

It seems that voting on a rule that deems a bill to be passed differs importantly from actually passing a bill. The difference is not just formalistic but deeply functional. A core purpose of the constitutional legislative process is to ensure that lawmakers are held accountable to the public. Their legislative voting record has to be clear, so that the electorate can make an informed decision on whether to reelect them.  Some feel that Slaughter's more than ample seat in the House is "bullet-proof;" she'll be there til the democracy collapses under the weight of fascism!!  I'm not so sure, the Tea Partiers carry more sway than the lawmakers are willing to recognize!!
Til Nex'Time....