Will Health Care Reform Pass Tactic Effect Gun Rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManBearPig

member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
151
Nanci Pelosi is considering an option, called the "Slaughter Option", in congress to pass the healthcare reform bill through the House. It's an option that bypasses the 60-vote majority and the 51-vote reconciliation. It's basically an option that says "It's passed because I, the Speaker, says so".

My question is this: If they end up doing this with Healthcare, what's to stop them from doing it with an Assault Weapon Ban? Could they then have Diane Fienstein and Carolyn McCarthy write up a bill that is worded as ridiculous as humanly possible that says all Americans have to turn in all their guns or be jailed or shot (something ridiculous that could never get votes), and then just use the slaughter option to say "it's passed, no voting required"?

I mean if the Speaker can use this "it's passed because I say so" option to pass the healthcare bill, then the Speaker can pass whatever bills she wants at her whim and nobody can do a damn thing about it...including another Assault Weapon Ban or something far worse. It completely takes voting out of it; doesn't matter how many are for or against the bill in question.
 
ManBearPig,

I wouldn't worry about it. They won't attempt something like that. It would be political suicide for the ENTIRE party. Plus, it would be easily unconstitutional and impossible to enforce.

Anything they attempt to do to reduce 2A rights will be much more backdoor and incremental. There is no appetite for gun control right now.
 
She pulled it out because she wants to scare people.

I think there is great misunderstanding on how the slaughter procedure works. A bill doesn't pass Congress just because the Speaker "says so".

In any case, when was the last time major legislation successfully passed slaughter procedure?

And how on earth does this thread survive the THR test for relevance to gun laws?
 
This is an end-around that's procedurally doable, and if it happened would be challenged as a circumvention of the Constitution's requirement for the house and senate to pass a bill that must then be signed by the President. We, the American public must scream to the high heavens over such an underhanded tactic. Should this be successful, the reality of it is that one would not know for certain which congressman to fire at the next election since there would be no vote required. And once the law is in place, good luck with a repeal even after the Democrats in Congress are in the minority. By then it will be entrenched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the health care bill gets passed through reconciliation, gun bills will be dead for the rest of the year. The reason they are trying to shove the student loan bill into the health care bill, is because they can only use reconciliation once a year. They obviously don't think they can get 60 votes in the Senate for the student loan bill and they sure as hell wouldn't for an AWB or other anti-gun bill.
If the healthcare bill gets passed, Nov. will be a bloodbath for the Dems making anti-gun bills in the near future much more difficult.
 
The OP asked a question on Congressional voting process and procedures, and how a controversial bill can become law. It is not a debate on whether the health care bill is good, bad, or ugly.

Also bear in mind that if it works this time, the same process will be used in the future. I think we can all agree that gun control is a politically controversial issue.

The WSJ described the process very well yesterday: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html
 
Last edited:
How about the gov. health insurance bureaucrat saying, oh I see you have guns in your home and children. You know those are deemed dangerous by gov. health care politburo, so if you want to keep health insurance we advise you to turn them in or sell them and provide proof of doing so. We care about your health... You have 30 days to comply :uhoh:
 
How about the gov. health insurance bureaucrat saying, oh I see you have guns in your home and children. You know those are deemed dangerous by gov. health care politburo, so if you want to keep health insurance we advise you to turn them in or sell them and provide proof of doing so. We care about your health... You have 30 days to comply
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken but I thought the health care legislation was amended to prevent exactly that. Can someone confirm that?
 
Even if they could "pass" a law like that it would be almost impossible to enforce, they would be more likely to regulate ammo because it would be much easier. if they "pass" the healthcare bill there will be lawsuits filed and it will get to the SCOTUS and if they have any respect for the constitution they will rule against it
 
Even if they could "pass" a law like that it would be almost impossible to enforce, as has been said before, they would be more likely to regulate ammo because it would be much easier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Infringements on the 2nd amendment will be via the US Code of the Federal Register, not the US Code. Meaning that agencies will screw you, not Congress.

For example, ATF is more likely to reclassify your guns as AOW than Congress is, and claim they are using existing legislation. Department of Transportation is more likely to make shipping harder than Congress is. Department of Labor is more likely to make up crazy rules about onerous changes to indoor ranges than Congress is.
 
If I understand the tactic correctly, this isn't such an uncommon way of passing a bill, and both parties use it many times per Congress. Something like 30-40 times each in several recent Congresses. Don't know if it is usually used on such high profile and controversial items though.
 
The other thing to keep in mind is that they are not passing new legislation without a vote, by fiat. They are simply going to declare that the house accepts the bill voted on by the senate, then move on to budget reconciliation. It allows certain members of the house some political cover to say 'I didn't vote for the bill' by not taking a formal vote, nothing more.

Those of you who think this is something more nefarious than that need to lay off the Kool Aid and pull your heads out of the echo chamber.

Incidentally, the proper name for this established procedural tactic is Self Execution, not the Slaughter Option, or whatever the loons are calling it.

The basic answer to the original question is 'No.' and as such, the subject has nothing to do with firearms and a lot to do with efforts to drum up garden variety right wing FUD.
 
Too much drift and too much snark to let the thread live, and the question seems to have been answered. Anyone needing more information about Congressional procedural issues would be well served to do real research on forums that actually cater to such topics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top