The Senate bill, passed only barely with pork dangling off it, was handed to the House for consideration, modification, and a vote. This (minus the pork) is a part of the Constitutional process in Article I Section VII: "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... " Fearing backlash if they approved of the special-interest bribes on the Senate bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used a loophole in this apparently strait forward process. If revisions alone to the bill are approved by the House, then House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter could deem this as approval of the entire bill without a formal vote. This they did, and carted the bill to the President to be signed into law.
The loophole was instated to provide efficiency in moving bills through both sides when agreement was reached on the bill itself, allowing only the revisions to be the refinement. Key proponents of the bill, including President Obama and Nancy Pelosi were urgent to get the bill passed. When the Senator's had not gone through/read the full bill (it being rather lengthy), Obama said, "This issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."
Any delay would allow for proper inspection of the bill and appropriate opposition. Regardless of the necessity of the reform, subverting constitutional articles is a far graver offense than would be delaying reform. Without the system of checks in its proper place as forwarded in The Federalist Papers, the ruling party has power to push its agenda freely through the opposition as if it were not there. If the Constitution is to be affronted, as in this case, let it be amended or altered, but do not put on a show of honest and fair passage. The American people have a right to some transparency in government dealings.
(Information for this was procured from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html
Agreed.
ReplyDelete