There is a great deal of nonsense flying around the internet this weekend about the country being ruled by martial law because the House Rules Committee is considering adopting the Senate bill under a special rule that deems the Senate bill adopted rather than adopting it as such. The claim is that this would violate Art. I, sec. 7, which states “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.” This provision, however, appears in the section of Article I dealing with vetos and veto overrides, and applies specifically to votes on veto overrides. Article I, sec. 5, explicitly states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” It further provides that one fifth of those present can demand a record of a yeas and nays vote, but it does not say precisely the issue that the vote must address. Although the special rule procedure that the House is considering may seem arcane, or perhaps stupid (since everyone who votes for the rule will have gone on record as voting for the Senate bill), it is not novel and has been used by the House before. http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf. One of the silliest commentaries declares that the framers regarded this provision so important that they capitalized the word “Bill.” Presumably they also thought that negative votes were more important than affirmative, since they capitalized “Nays” but not “yeas.” Judging the intention of the framers from capitalization is a perilous business.
- Sure enough, Supreme Court denies cert in ERISA case
- Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court, the pay or play debate continues (but maybe not for long)
- Battle in the Bureaucracy: An Interview with James Morone, Part II
- Battle in the Bureaucracy: An Interview with James Morone, Part I
- “Rationing”: An Interview with David Orentlicher
Tags3962 abortion amendment authority benefits bill committee congress constitution constitutional coverage democrats employer erisa exchange exchanges federal government health house income individual individuals insurance insurer issues legal legislation litigation mandate medicaid medicare parliamentarian policy private provisions public reconciliation reform regulation senate state states taxes Tort