The end justifies the means???

[futurebeachbum]

This Bloomberg article "Pelosi Tactic for Health-Care Vote Would Raise Legal Questions" says that the Pelosi's approach to claim that the house had voted for the Senate bill, without really doing is probably unconstitutional.

Pelosi said this week she might use a parliamentary technique that would ?deem? House members to have passed the Senate?s health-care plan by voting for a more politically palatable package of changes.

Some legal scholars question whether that approach can be squared with the Constitution and the Supreme Court?s 1998 declaration that the two houses of Congress must approve ?precisely the same text? before a bill can become a law.

Machiavelli said it first: "The end justifies the means".

Isn't that the same logic that gave us The Patriot Act and waterboarding?

 

[Matt J]

Depends on your definition of "exactly".

 

[Here4Good]

Where was all of the concern for proper procedure when Bush exercised his signing statements to negate the effect of laws passed by Congress?

Now all of the sudden everyone is a Parlamentarian. I note that none of the major news sites this morning are leading with what the bill actually says, they are all obsessed with how the two parties "feel" about the bill and the general trash-talking that our sophomoric elected officials constantly engage in.

 

[Will B]

Never before has it been used to implement something that will put close to 20% of the nation's economy in the hands of the US government.

You can claim that has been done before, and it has but never for something that will cost a trillion dollars. It's not an apples to apples comparison no matter how hard you try to force the issue.

 

[Here4Good]

Never before has it been used to implement something that will put close to 20% of the nation's economy in the hands of the US government.

You can claim that has been done before, and it has but never for something that will cost a trillion dollars. It's not an apples to apples comparison no matter how hard you try to force the issue.

The bill does not put 100% of the health care costs "in the government's hands". That's the 20% figure. That would mean a single payer universal health care system, which this is most certainly not.

From what I read in the CBO report, increased gov't spending is from supplementing health insurance and increased funding to community health centers. Your doctor will not be getting his paycheck from the US Treasury.