The Constitution? They're just not that into it. Given how it limits goverment power and all.
A bridge too far?
This is a prudential consideration -- i.e., sure, this thing stinks on ice, but wouldn't it be worse for the Constitution if the Court stepped in and began micromanaging procedure in a coequal branch of government?
Such prudential concerns are important, but they do have their limits.
For example: Suppose that the the House passes a bill. But Nancy Pelosi doesn't like it, and substitutes her own version with some editing for the bill actually passed. She then presents this to the President for signature (after the Senate passes it).
Now, this is blatantly unconstitutional -- she just slipped a law to the President without a vote on it at all; it's merely what she alone wants -- but she's entrusted to do this presentation business and she claims it was passed.
Now if the House doesn't have some way to thwart her here -- if they cannot rouse some sort of vote to stop this -- is it really true that even in this case the Court would say "It is not for us to decide how the House manages its affairs?"
I doubt it. There is a limit to how much restraint prudence dictates you show in the face of constitutional lawlessness.
Now, in the present case, the situation is not quite as extreme. However, in the past, the self-executing "demonpass" dodge was used with regard to legislation that was going to pass anyway; Congress concocted itself a trivial dodge so they could say they hadn't voted to raise the debt ceiling. But if that dodge had not been available, they would have voted for it.
It'll certianly be challenged.
Meanwhile, Sad President is Sad.
Roger L. Simon ends:
What we may be watching is what happens when a man who has faced very little adversity in his life finally has to.
Stuart Williamson comments:
You call it unhappiness. I see it as anger, based on irritation and frustration.
“Change” wasn’t supposed to work out this way. HE won, the Right lost. Live with it! This was the man who was going to move mountains, cause oceans to subside, with the magic of his golden tongued oratory. Ruthless rulers would roll over at his bidding. His hubris is such that he truly believes that HealthCare, Cap and Trade, Educational reform – all his primary agenda – should be a slam dunk. It has not happened that way: he’s being shocked, blocked, stymied.
And he’s taking it personally and peevishly. This is a man without political skills, without diplomatic skills, without any instincts for governance. He doesn’t care about polls. He has no interest in what the electorate thinks.
The country is in the very best of hands!
And let's round out with Ramesh Ponnuru demolishing some Talking Points.
Talking point: The plan gives Americans, rather than government or health insurers, more control over their health insurance.
Reality: While you may want to go without insurance—especially once the government is done remaking it—the government will make you fork over cash to the insurance companies. If you want to buy a cheap catastrophic policy, the government will tell the insurance companies not to offer you one.
Talking point: The bill lets you keep your doctor and your insurance plan.
Reality: Unless you’re on Medicare Advantage, or your plan doesn’t meet the new regulatory standards, or the new law induces your employer to drop your coverage.
Talking point: “The American people deserve an up-or-down vote.”
Reality: Except in the House.