Posted by
Defend America on Monday, March 15, 2010 6:35:34 PM
Would Supreme Court rule unconstitutional law passed with Slaughter Solution?
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
03/15/10 4:21 PM EDT
Democrats in Congress might want to re-read the 1998 Supreme Court decision Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 before
moving forward with the Slaughter Solution to pass President Obama's
health care reform bill. That decision is chiefly remembered today for
holding a federal version of the line-item veto as unconstitutional.
The reason, according to Amy Ridenour at the National Center Blog,
is that the Justice John Paul Stevens articulated in the majority
opinion the precise rationale for a similar ruling against legislation
passed using the Slaughter Solution.
Ridenour notes that Stevens wrote:
"...our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures
authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the
Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document
that became 'Public Law 105--33' after three procedural steps were
taken:
"(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of
the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved
precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the
President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those
three steps be taken before a bill may 'become a law.' Art. I, Section
7.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Would-Supreme-Court-rule-unconstitutional-law-passed-with-Slaughter-Solution-87685887.html