Mark Levin, a Constitutional attorney, as is Barack Obama, explains what is wrong with the Slaughter Rule, expected to be the vehicle that passes health care without both Chambers of Congress voting to pass it into law. Levin said if the legislation should become law through this process, he will be one of many to take it to Court, because it is blatantly unconstitutional, and essentially the same as declaring Martial Law. He ended his remarks by saying if health care is passed with the Slaughter Rule, he will be one of many taking it to court.
The following are Mark's comments. The passage from the Constitution follows his audio, which you can hear for yourself if you would rather listen than read, at The Mark Levin Show. [Note: if you are not familiar with the word 'fiat,' unless talking about the auto, 'fiat' in this case means obtaining a legal right through a short cut. It is Latin for "let it be done," undoubtedly used in Kingdoms all over the world.]
If this is done it will create the greatest Constitutional Crises since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than WaterGate. It would be law by fiat, meaning Government by fiat, because there would be no law - just fiat.
The mere discussion by leading officials in our Government of such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress, puts us, ladies and and gentlemen, at the brink...at brink. This is why we Conservatives revere the constitution. This is why we stress that the Constitution's words have meaning, and historical context, and they need to be complied with, because otherwise it's anarchy, which leads to tyranny.
This is a crucial lesson for those of you listening, who aren't sure what your beliefs are, if you have any beliefs or don't even care. We have an effort underway, by one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress; a woman who heads the Rules Committee, who determines what goes to the House floor, how it gets voted on, who gets to amend it and all the rest...openly discussion gutting Congress...and if this is done ,this is about as close to Marshall Law as you will get.
Louise Slaughter from New York is discussing Martial Law. I can tell you, if they persue this process and try to impose this kind of law without actually passing a statute, I can assure you I will be in a race with scores of others to the court house to try to stop this.
I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this, and the Liberal media has essentially ignored it. It's not only absurb on its face that these power hungry ideologues - "party-first," "country-second" types, would make the claim that the House voted on something that the House never voted on, is not only absurd on it's face. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
End Levin's remarks
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...
Related and Background:
Pelosi Will Pass Senate Bill in House? Slaughter Rule Ruled Out?