# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/81 "2010-03-20T19:57:34Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > 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? Because, in order to use reconciliation to push pass obstructionism, Senate Rules require that the underlying bill to be amended (Bill A) be approved by both Houses. This is why the House has to vote on the Senate Bill (Bill A) even though they don’t want it; the Senate doesn’t want it; and the Administration doesn’t want it. But the GOP has 41 Senators, and are throwing these procedural roadblocks in the way of reform. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/82 "2010-03-20T20:05:28Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > 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. I concur with your inference the procedure is constitutional. However, I do not think it is accurate to suggest everything gets voted on. The original Senate bill is not voted on. The original Senate bill is not passed on the basis of votes for or against it but rather the passage of the original Senate bill is contingent upon the passage of another bill which is being voted on, another bill receiving votes for or against it. I actually like the _Field_ abstention rule, and I do not think the rule is as prohibitive as some in the legal field suggest. _United States v. Munoz-Flores_, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) limits the applicability of _Field_. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/83 "2010-03-20T20:09:19Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > Because, in order to use reconciliation to push pass obstructionism, Senate Rules require that the underlying bill to be amended (Bill A) be approved by both Houses. > > This is why the House has to vote on the Senate Bill (Bill A) even though they don’t want it; the Senate doesn’t want it; and the Administration doesn’t want it. But the GOP has 41 Senators, and are throwing these procedural roadblocks in the way of reform. Okay…this is what I thought the answer would be but I wanted to make sure. This is the only answer which made sense but I was not certain, so I wanted to see what you had to say. Thanks. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/84 "2010-03-20T20:11:07Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > 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 don’t see how that addresses McConnell’s concern. They would be voting on a rule of procedure that would not be permitted by the Constitution, he might say. There would still be a single measure combining two things that should remain separate; that single measure does not, by itself, equate with the unamended Senate bill, which the Constitution requires (again, per McConnell). ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/85 "2010-03-20T20:21:32Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I concur with your inference the procedure is constitutional. However, I do not think it is accurate to suggest everything gets voted on. The original Senate bill is not voted on. The original Senate bill is not passed on the basis of votes for or against it but rather the passage of the original Senate bill is contingent upon the passage of another bill which is being voted on, another bill receiving votes for or against it. How about a rough analogy from the law of contracts? - I’m a widget retailer, and I need more inventory. I meet up with a widget producer, and he offers me Contract A, which he has already signed. I don’t like the terms too much (say, the financing plan is not something that works best for me), but I definitely need to restock. - So, we talk through better terms and draw up Contract B. The producer can’t sign Contract B yet; he has to talk to his boss, etc. - I prefer Contract B to A, and I prefer A to nothing at all. So we add a term at the bottom of Contract B, that says “if the widget producer is unable to agree to the financing terms listed above, the financing terms of Contract A are to apply”. - I now sign Contract B. Haven’t I agreed to the terms of Contract A? ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/86 "2010-03-20T20:30:30Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t see how that addresses McConnell’s concern. They would be voting on a rule of procedure that would not be permitted by the Constitution, he might say. There would still be a single measure combining two things that should remain separate; that single measure does not, by itself, equate with the unamended Senate bill, which the Constitution requires (again, per McConnell). I don’t believe the constitution should be interpreted in such a formalistic way. Everything that passes and becomes law would have been voted on by a majority of both houses, and presented to the President for his signature. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/87 "2010-03-20T23:12:00Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > I don’t believe the constitution should be interpreted in such a formalistic way. Everything that passes and becomes law would have been voted on by a majority of both houses, and presented to the President for his signature. I disagree when it applies to the forms specifically prescribed by the Constitution. I understand that there’s disagreement as to whether or not the Slaughter rule runs afoul of the procedural requirements in the Constitution. But surely it’s valid to debate form when discussing an issue of form, and the Constitution certainly covers such matters. ---
**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 21, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/88 "2010-03-21T03:41:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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. It is. That’s why it’s never been a problem. ---
**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 21, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/89 "2010-03-21T03:42:50Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > That’s smart. It would have been perceived as sneaky. Only by morons. ---
**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 21, 2010, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/90 "2010-03-21T09:45:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is. That’s why it’s never been a problem. Some pretty credible people disagree with you. > [@](#): > > Only by morons. Yep, those millions and millions of morons who vote. ---
**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 21, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/91 "2010-03-21T11:11:46Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Some pretty credible people disagree with you. No they don’t. They know they’re full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/92 "2010-03-22T02:46:10Z")
The bill just passed in the House. Democratic members are chanting “yes we can”! ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031/93 "2010-03-22T05:25:55Z")
Like, uh…Doooom…and stuff. Or maybe not. Guess we’ll see soon enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutionality-of-the-slaughterhouse-rule/533031.md?page=4)