Nancy Pelosi, without protest from Harry Reid, threatened to use the “Deeming Rule” to pass the Obama-Care bill which is, in and of itself, an oxymoron because the Deeming Rule actually side steps actual passage of a bill. The Deeming rule “deems” the House of Representatives to have voted for the Senate version of the Bill even though no such recorded vote was actually taken. It is currently being referred to as the “Slaughter Solution” because the House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York suggested its use. It is also referred to as the “Self-Executing Rule” and the “Deem and Pass Rule.” The Rule, pick a title, sidesteps Article I of the United States Constitution.

Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). (This is legal citation referencing the Supreme Court Case of Clinton v. City of New York).

In Public Citizen v. United States District Court For The District Of Columbia, 486 F3rd 1342, Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. (SOUND FAMILIAR?) In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

This is what Slaughter and Pelosi have threatened to do using the “Deeming Rule.” They have threatened to “Deem” passed a bill which wasn’t passed. The argument against it’s use is that it denies bicameralism which means it denies the requirement that both the House and Senate pass the same bill as set forth in Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. Please know, in Public Citizens the distinction between the two bills was a clerical error with respect to a single term, thus the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill.

The District Court held that Public Citizen’s bicameralism claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892). The Court held that the judiciary must treat the attestations of “the two houses, through their presiding officers” as “conclusive evidence that [a bill] was passed by Congress.” Marshall Field, 143 U.S. at 672-73, 12 S.Ct. 495. Under Marshall Field, a bill signed by the leaders of the House and Senate—an attested “enrolled bill”—establishes that Congress passed the text included therein “according to the forms of the Constitution,” and it “should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.” Id. at 672-73, 12 S.Ct. 495.

What does this mean? It means that the court held that “enrolled bill rule” prohibited it from questioning the congressional pedigree of the bill signed by the Speaker and President pro tempore. A bill is enrolled when it is entered in the Congressional Journals. Here’s some more legal jargon for you:

“Engrossed Bills” and “Enrolled Bills” in the House and Senate:

Every bill . . . in each House of Congress shall, when such bill . . . passes either House, be printed, and such printed copy shall be called the ENGROSSED BILL. Said ENGROSSED BILL . . . shall be signed by the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate, and shall be sent to the other House, and in that form shall be dealt with by that House and its officers, and, if passed, returned signed by said Clerk or Secretary.

When such bill . . . shall have passed both Houses, it shall be printed and shall then be called the ENROLLED BILL, . . . signed by the presiding officers of both Houses and sent to the President of the United States

Thus, an “engrossed bill” is a bill passed by either house. An “enrolled bill” has passed both Houses, it is an “enrolled bill.” Here’s some more law: U.S.C. § 106. An “engrossed bill” is thus one that has passed one chamber of Congress, while an “enrolled bill” has passed both the House and the Senate.

The Deeming Rule by-passes the Constitutional requirement that the same bill passes both Houses.

So what happens when the “Deeming Rule” is invoked? Here’s some more law: “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.”), enshrines congressional journals—not the enrolled bill—as “the best, if not conclusive, evidence upon the issue as to whether a bill was, in fact, passed by the two houses of Congress.” Marshall Field, 143 U.S. at 670, 12 S.Ct. 495.

What does this mean? Here’s what it means: even though the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate have endorsed the bill as having passed the bodies over which they presided, if shown by the Congressional record of proceedings, reports of committees of each house, reports of committees of conference, and other papers printed by authority of Congress” that part of the bill passed was missing in the version enrolled, it is still “deemed” as passed.

In lay terms please: Even though the actual enrolled bills don’t match up, and in the present House and Senate bills they definitely don’t match, the journal entry rules and it only takes one fifth of those present to enter it in the Journal. Wala! We have an “engrossed bill,” ready for Presidential signing. Let’s be more on point. Wala! The Senate Obama-Caere bill is up for signing notwithstanding the fact that it wasn’t passed by the House, notwithstanding that the House bill is different.

Here are some problems with the Slaughter Rule’s application.

1. The object of the Journal Clause is to ensure transparency in legislative activities. Wait, we don’t have transparency going on here. We’ve got back room politics. Thus, Pelosi and Slaughter are contravening the spirit of the law.

2. Congress had long chosen signing of the enrolled bill by the presiding members of both houses as its method of authentication. The problem? There is an inherent trust in the Journal Clause that the “authentication” is actually that, an honest “authentication.” But the fact is, the House and Senate Bills aren’t even close, they’re barely “Dutch Uncles” of each other. And still, the Presiding members of the House and Senate are going to “authenticate” that they are the same. Again, contrary to Constitutional Law. (Note: In the Public Citizens Case, the difference between the two bills was a Medicare provision for duration of payments. One bill had thirteen (13) months, one bill had twenty-six (26) months. That’s it.)

Here’s the good news. In Public Citizens, the court held, relying upon a prior case, Marshall Field, 143 U.S. at 670, 12 S.Ct. 495. “Nothing in the Marshall Field opinion purports to limit application of the enrolled bill rule to journal-based challenges. And neither of the Court’s rationales applies solely to impeachment by journals. No less “uncertainty in the statute laws” upon which “depend public and private interests of vast magnitude, would result from allowing collateral attack of the enrolled bill by congressional documents other than journals. And “the spectacle of examination of journals by [the courts]” no more “subordinates the legislature,” than does inspection of other materials. Marshall Field’s plain language and justification cannot be read to create a rule of dismissal limited to the claims of plaintiffs who rely primarily upon journals to rebut an attested enrolled bill

In lay terms please. The Court isn’t limited to only the journals to decide whether there was a violation of Constitutional law. The Court can look at the actual two bills. The Court can look at at almost anything else they so chose. And in the case of health care, when the Court does look at the actual House and Senate Bills, they will recognize the violation of the Law and they will recognize the fraud in the authentication in the Journal. And, In accordance with Marshall Field, the Court can and should examine the evidence that the authentication in the journal was a travesty of dishonesty. Thus, not only will the Court look at both bills, the law says they should look which legally means “they must look.” And when they do, look out Pelosi!

So have faith. Pelosi and Slaughter are mis-reading the law. Ironically, Pelosi has filed a brief protesting the use of the Deeming rule, the very rule she is now threatening to use.

Here’s some more law: There is nothing that prohibits the Court from looking into a bicameral violation such as the one that Pelosi and Slaughter are proposing. In fact, the law specifically holds that the Journal Entry alone does not dictate the legal analysis. It is my position, and this is Reetzality, not Supreme Court law, but it is based upon Supreme Court law, that given the monstrosity of the differences between the House and Senate Bill, a bicameral challenge will succeed. More lay law: A bicameral challenge will reveal the abusive and unconstitutional use of the “deeming rule” and the fraud in Pelosi’s proposed journal authentication.

So Pelosi, go for it. Deem it passed. And then watch as the whole thing gets thrown out because I assure you, the Court is not going to spend the time figuring out what was passed and what wasn’t passed. They’ll simply find it un-Constitutional based upon your violation of Article I, throw it out, and tell you to start over. What the Court will affirm though is your and your minions’ tyrannical personalities.

Boy, you’d think they’d know this given Obama being a Constitutional Law Professor. But who am I to question.

Again, go for it Pelosi. Deem yourself, Obama, Reid, and the rest of you scoundrels the tyrants that you are.

And that is my long winded technical legal Reetzality for the Day.

Thanks for the Read. I hope I taught you something.

Brett Reetz

Note: Contact as many representatives as you can and tell them to vote no on Health Care. Tell them to leave America alone. On second thought, tell them just to leave.