# Constitutionality of the Slaughterhouse Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031 "2010-03-19T16:40:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/61 "2010-03-20T02:59:06Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > That’s the reason the House has to pass Bill A, even though they don’t want it. > > Here’s how it works: > > However, Reconcilation requires that the Bill be passed by both houses\*, so the House has to have _also_ passed Bill A (the original Senate bill), even though the House does not like Bill A. The House wants Bill B. The Senate even wants Bill B. But because of the Republican’s obstruction, the House has to pass Bill A, which neither chamber wants anymore. > > \*I’m still simplifying that a bit; it’s of no matter to this discussion, but I’ll explain it if you ask. > [@](#): > > However, Reconcilation requires that the Bill be passed by both houses\*, so the House has to have _also_ passed Bill A (the original Senate bill), even though the House does not like Bill A. The House wants Bill B. The Senate even wants Bill B. But because of the Republican’s obstruction, the House has to pass Bill A, which neither chamber wants anymore. Here is my question Piker. If reconciliation requires the bill be passed by both houses, and the U.S. Constitution has the same requirement, and the house passes what you have described as Bill B, and the Senate then votes to approve of Bill B, then why must bill A be approved in the House when Bill B has passed both the House and Senate? ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/62 "2010-03-20T03:00:05Z")
> **[Balkinization: Michael McConnell and the metaphysics of bills](https://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-mcconnell-and-metaphysics-of.html)** > > A group blog on constitutional law, theory, and politics > [@](#): > > March 18, 2010 > > The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter > Chair, House Rules Committee > 2469 Rayburn, House Office Building > United States House of Representatives > Washington, D.C. 20515 > Dear Representative Slaughter: > > Questions have recently been raised in the press about the constitutionality of the House of Representatives using a self-executing rule to pass health care reform. The rule would allow the House to pass the Senate’s health care reform amendments to H.R. 3590 along with the House’s proposed reconciliation measure in a single vote. > > I write to explain why the use of a self-executing rule for these purposes is consistent with the Constitution. > > Under Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, a bill does not become a law until it is passed by both houses of Congress, presented to the President for his signature, and the President then signs the bill or otherwise allows it to become law without his signature. These are sometimes collectively referred to as the requirements of bicameralism and presentment. > > In order to satisfy the requirements of bicameralism and presentment, the two houses must pass bills with identical language. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). > > As I understand it, the rule to be employed by the House for the consideration of the reconciliation measure will state that, upon passage of the reconciliation measure by the House, the House concurs in the amendments to H.R. 3590 passed by the Senate. This language means that the House agrees to pass the same language as the amended bill passed by the Senate. > > If this is the case, then the language of this self-executing rule complies with the requirements of Article I, Section 7. The Constitution does not require that the House take a separate vote on the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590. Under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives, like the Senate, the power to “determine the rules of its proceedings.” A rule which consolidates a vote on a bill and accompanying amendments, or, as in this case, a reconciliation measure and an amended bill, is within the House’s powers under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2. > > Sincerely Yours, > > /s/ Jack M. Balkin /s/ > > Jack M. Balkin > Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, > Yale Law School See the rest of the post for his response to McConnell. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/63 "2010-03-20T11:53:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s constitutional. > > The time to complain about the constitutionality of this practice is long past. I don’t particularly like the current use of the practice, but I don’t like lots of things that are, amazingly, not violative of the Constitution. Bricker, get back in here! I was waiting just to get to your explanation, knowing your attraction to such debates. Very interested in your rationale. Does this stand on its textualist merits, even if it’s just a thought experiment at this point, given that the ship has long sailed in terms of precedent set by prior votes and decisions? Or do you come to that conclusion for some other reason? Maybe it’s self-evident to someone more expert than me, but I see the OP’s point. Some of the noise on talk radio points to decisions on line item vetoes as support for the unconstitutionality of this rule–i.e., that this was deemed unacceptable becase the Constitution requires that a Bill be passed by both Houses with identical text, and only then can it be installed as law. IOW, a real “live” Bill, with text to read, is the subject of a vote, otherwise we’re missing a part of the equation. Perhaps that’s an pedantic procedural distinction, but then, so seems the Slaughter rule. Worlds turn on such points. Here’s [one expert’s](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html) take on it: > [@](#): > > Enter the Slaughter solution. It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law. > > To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another. > > The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.” He doesn’t seem to offer any wiggle room. And he seems damn credible (from the cite: “Mr. McConnell is a professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He formerly served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.”). Whether or not this has occurred a million times, does this pass constitutional muster from reading the text alone? Whether or not this is constitutional, it’s clearly a way to avoid political responsibility. Otherwise, they’d just vote on the damn Bill, right? Your thoughts would be appreciated if you have a few minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/64 "2010-03-20T12:03:00Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > [Balkinization: Michael McConnell and the metaphysics of bills](http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-mcconnell-and-metaphysics-of.html) > > See the rest of the post for his response to McConnell. Interesting read. In part, though, it reads to me like, “Enough with all these pedantic, ‘angels on the head of a pin’ debates over arcane procedural points! Otherwise we’ll never get this pedantic, ‘angels on the head of a pin’ arcane procedure executed.” IOW, how can he dismiss all this as pedantic, when that whole @#$%ing debate is, including the rule in question? Somebody’s right, and handwaving away (to any extent) “hyperformalist” arguments, over an issue of form, seems, well, to miss the point a bit. (A bit. I realize he offers more than that. I would love to hear him and McConnell debate this.) Again, though, interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/65 "2010-03-20T12:46:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Whether or not this is constitutional, it’s clearly a way to avoid political responsibility. Otherwise, they’d just vote on the damn Bill, right? There are very particular reasons the bill is being pushed through this way most of which have to do with Republican obstructionism. If not for that you would almost certainly see a vote on the “damn Bill” as is normal (if anything can be said to be normal in our legislature). IANAL but I am not seeing how your guy is reading the Constitution on this one: > [@](#): > > Article I: > > Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto > > All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. > > 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; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. 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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. > > Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. So, the relevant bits would seem to be: - 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 - 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. The first bit says nothing about the requirements to pass a law…just says they have to pass it and elsewhere in the constitution we know they are explicitly granted the right to set their own rules. The second part seems to me to say they have to vote and have their votes recorded. It makes no distinction on what MUST be voted on. Hell, pisses me off that they attach all sorts of riders to other legislation so we get the “Save the Babies” bill which no one can vote against to which they attach “Bridge to Nowhere” riders. The constitution does not say you must vote on issues in a particular way, separately or otherwise. It just says there needs to be a vote. And HCR will get a vote. Not seeing the problem constitutionally. We may wish there was a more refined system but working with what we’ve got it seems, to my untrained legal sense, to pass muster. Of course it seemed to pass muster with the trained legal sense of the courts (as cited upthread) already as well. While my analysis may be in error I feel safe in the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/66 "2010-03-20T13:51:36Z")
Is there a way for a member of the House to vote _for_ the unamended bill and _against_ the amended bill? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/67 "2010-03-20T14:05:55Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Is there a way for a member of the House to vote _for_ the unamended bill and _against_ the amended bill? I doubt it. Do you think there should be that option? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/68 "2010-03-20T14:32:39Z")
To get completely nitpicky, taken to its full extreme this argument would hold the following: 1. The House passed a measure that reads, “Resolved, if the Senate concur, that whereas…” [3500 words of preamble omitted], “now, therefore, be it enacted that…” [28,300 words of mind-numbingly legalese substantive text of law omitted]. 2. The Senate passed a measure that reads, “Resolved, if the House of Representatives concur, that whereas…” [3500 identical words of preamble omitted], “now, therefore, be it enacted that…” [the same 28,300 words of mind-numbingly legalese substantive text of law omitted]. 3. The two measures, _as passed by the respective houses of Congress,_ are not word-for-word identical. They therefore did not pass the same law, and (presuming the President then signed it), attempts to enforce it as the law of the land are unconstitutional. See the problem here? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/69 "2010-03-20T15:00:52Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > (presuming the President then signed it) Signed what, precisely? Isn’t that the issue? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/70 "2010-03-20T15:29:41Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Signed what, precisely? Isn’t that the issue? In my hypothetical example, the measures are identical except for the words “Senate” and “House of Representatives” respectively in the initial phrase of the enabling resolution – and it is the [identical] text which those two enabling resolutions pass which is signed into law by the President. That was my point: the actual content passed, not the procedural method used to pass it, is what must pass muster. By the way, I may be guilty of aiding and abetting the misnomer in the thread title: I made a pun in the related Pit thread based on the similarity between “deem and pass”'s alternate title of “Slaughter rule” after Rep. Louise Slaughter, under whose chairmanship it was accepted by the House Rules Committee, and the “Slaughterhouse cases”, the former, highly restrictive interpretation of the 14th Amendment established by SCOTUS in rejecting a challenge to a State of Louisiana statute regulating New Orleans slaughterhouses, brought by the butchers who would have been required to comply with the statute and use them. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/71 "2010-03-20T17:32:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > There are very particular reasons the bill is being pushed through this way most of which have to do with Republican obstructionism. If not for that you would almost certainly see a vote on the “damn Bill” as is normal (if anything can be said to be normal in our legislature). I’m not understanding it that way. My impression is that there’s too much political peril for certain Dems to vote yea on the unamended Senate bill, and if they were forced to do so, Ms. Pelosi would not have enough votes. Game over. This provides enough cover that it’s more likely to get the necessary support. But if the House were to actually vote on the Bill, and they had enough votes, nothing the Republicans could do would stop it. IOW, this is not a “Republican obstructionist” issue. This is a Democratic “I’m not voting for that @#$%ing thing, not officially” issue. No? If you’re referring to the filibuster that “forces” the reconciliation approach, I don’t see it that way. Them’s the rules. If the Slaughter Rule is constitutional, same deal. But filibusters do not justify an unconstitutional tactic, if that’s what the Slaughter Rule does. > [@](#): > > Not seeing the problem constitutionally. We may wish there was a more refined system but working with what we’ve got it seems, to my untrained legal sense, to pass muster. > > Of course it seemed to pass muster with the trained legal sense of the courts (as cited upthread) already as well. While my analysis may be in error I feel safe in the conclusion. Yes, I’m hearing lots of concurring opinions (which have the weight of prior decisions, apparently). I think the McConnell camp, as I’m reading it, says you can’t amend a bill that has not been voted on. To “deem the Senate bill passed” in the same vote means, effectively, that they are voting only on the amended bill, which means that they have not passed the exact bill, same text. And they must start with that act, or the are violating Article I, Section 7. This is clearly (on both sides) a nitpicky procedural debate, one of specific forms. But it’s those forms that are delineated in the Constitution and if the McConnell argument is correct, doesn’t matter how picky it seems. You just can’t do it. Balkin, obviously, disagrees. He says this does not take two separate measures and melt them together into one (as McConnell asserts), it merely combines the votes on two items that still exist as separate measures, happily occupying the same bill like college roommates. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/72 "2010-03-20T17:57:35Z")
The Republicans used Deem and Pass more than 100 times when they had control of Congress under Clinton and Bush. Why didn’t they or any of their Wall Street Journal lackeys ever notice it was unconstitutional when THEY were doing it? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/73 "2010-03-20T18:08:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Republicans used Deem and Pass more than 100 times when they had control of Congress under Clinton and Bush. Why didn’t they or any of their Wall Street Journal lackeys ever notice it was unconstitutional when THEY were doing it? Dunno. But that’s not really an argument. It’s either unconstitutional or it isn’t, whether the D’s or the R’s do it, whether the WSJ speaks up or not. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/74 "2010-03-20T18:12:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Republicans used Deem and Pass more than 100 times when they had control of Congress under Clinton and Bush. Why didn’t they or any of their Wall Street Journal lackeys ever notice it was unconstitutional when THEY were doing it? IOKIYAR, of course! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/75 "2010-03-20T19:04:15Z")
Just as an update, the Democrats have decided not to use deem and pass on this bill. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/76 "2010-03-20T19:05:45Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Just as an update, the Democrats have decided not to use deem and pass on this bill. They have enough votes to do it the “normal” way? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/77 "2010-03-20T19:30:45Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > To get completely nitpicky, taken to its full extreme this argument would hold the following: > > 1. The House passed a measure that reads, “Resolved, if the Senate concur, that whereas…” [3500 words of preamble omitted], “now, therefore, be it enacted that…” [28,300 words of mind-numbingly legalese substantive text of law omitted]. > > 2. The Senate passed a measure that reads, “Resolved, if the House of Representatives concur, that whereas…” [3500 identical words of preamble omitted], “now, therefore, be it enacted that…” [the same 28,300 words of mind-numbingly legalese substantive text of law omitted]. > > 3. The two measures, _as passed by the respective houses of Congress,_ are not word-for-word identical. They therefore did not pass the same law, and (presuming the President then signed it), attempts to enforce it as the law of the land are unconstitutional. > > See the problem here? No. Can you please exlain? Here is my understanding of what could occur. Correct my misunderstandings if and where they exist, please. The House of Reps has proposed to pass a bill, let’s hypothetically call it bill H.R.B 100B. Then there is the Senate bill, let’s call it SB 100A. H.R.B 100B is SB 100A but with amendments and corrections to the Senate bill. The House of Reps passes H.R.B 100B, which is the Senate bill with amendments and corrections. Then, H.R.B 100B goes to the Senate, and they vote to approve H.R.B 100B. It seems to me, the House and Senate have passed the same bill in H.R.B 100B, or am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/78 "2010-03-20T19:31:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > They have enough votes to do it the “normal” way? No idea. Steny Hoyer claims they do. But here’s Bloomberg and MSNBC confirming they’re dropping deem and pass: [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSCtesuuV.1E&pos=8](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSCtesuuV.1E&pos=8) [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/ns/politics-health\_care\_reform/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/ns/politics-health_care_reform/) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/79 "2010-03-20T19:51:06Z")
That’s smart. It would have been perceived as sneaky. ---
**Author:** ![Piker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@Piker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Piker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/80 "2010-03-20T19:53:03Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > If you’re referring to the filibuster that “forces” the reconciliation approach, I don’t see it that way. Them’s the rules. If the Slaughter Rule is constitutional, same deal. But filibusters do not justify an unconstitutional tactic, if that’s what the Slaughter Rule does.Yes, I’m hearing lots of concurring opinions (which have the weight of prior decisions, apparently). I think the McConnell camp, as I’m reading it, says you can’t amend a bill that has not been voted on. To “deem the Senate bill passed” in the same vote means, effectively, that they are voting only on the amended bill, which means that they have not passed the exact bill, same text. And they must start with that act, or the are violating Article I, Section 7. I think you’re overlooking the fact that there would be a vote to attach the self-executing rule to the Amended Bill. It’s not as if House leadership would declare by fiat that the vote on the Amended Bill “deems the Senate bill passed”. There would be a vote to include the self-executing rule as part of the Amended Bill. And then they would vote on the Amended Bill, which includes that rule. I have my problems with the Marshall Field abstention doctrine (which is what the D.C. Circuit relied upon in dismissing the earlier challenge to this rule). But even if a court were to look at the merits of this process were it to be challenged in court, I think it will easily pass muster. Everything gets voted on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031.md?page=5)