RUSH: Now, if they get away with this — if they get away with the Slaughter Solution, if they get away with voting on something other than the Senate bill but saying they did vote on the Senate bill, if they get away with ‘deeming’ something to pass — they’re going to do it again. Bob Gibbs said so yesterday. He said they’ll even use it on amnesty. They’ll even use this same procedure to get amnesty for illegals. It was yesterday afternoon at the White House press briefing in the Rose Garden. A reporter said, ‘Mark Levin with the Landmark Legal Foundation has prepared a suit against the President that if he signs the health care bill passed by the House without a recorded yea or nay vote required by Article I, Section 7. My question on that is, would the President rule out signing future bills such as immigration reform or finance reform you mentioned earlier that are not subject to a yea or nay vote in both chambers?’ In other words: Will you do this again? Will you pass bills without actually voting on them?
GIBBS: I understand that there are those that want to discuss this as being, uhh, a unique thing. It is not. I stated earlier that, uh, when this bill passes the House, the president will be happy to sign.
REPORTER: So the president wouldn’t rule out signing future bills that didn’t pass both houses by a yea-or-nay vote?
GIBBS: I’m not going to get into a series of legal hypotheticals that both of us seem unprepared to discuss.
RUSH: So they are prepared. If he does it this way, he’ll do it again. Gibbs said Obama is ‘perfectly happy’ to sign the bill if it comes to him without having been voted on and passed by both houses. So they’ll do it again, and they will because the Constitution’s an impediment to these people and what they want. It’s serious. Now, what are the likelihoods…? A lot of people are asking, ‘What are the likelihoods a lawsuit to stop this can succeed?’ and it is a tough challenge here. There are a tough couple of things to overcome. The Supreme Court had a decision in 1892 and there have been two subsequent circuit decisions that rely on it as precedent, including the DC circuit where this would be litigated, if it is. The Supreme Court decision in 1892 said that the court will not look behind the enrollment of the bill. That is, once the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate certify that they have a bill, the Supreme Court said they will not look at how the bill became law. If that holds, then all this is academic and it ain’t going to happen. Separation of powers, coequal branches.
The Supreme Court says, ‘It’s not our business how they do it. We’ll rule on the constitutionality of the result but we’re not going to mess around with how they did it and get involved in that.’ That’s what they said in 1892, and that is a key provision or issue that has to be overcome. And given that this is a fundamental violation of the Constitution, a lot of legal scholars think that they have a solid chance here of getting the court to actually look at the process because it is, without question, a violation of the Constitution. It’s a violation of the Constitution that is profoundly specific in its intent. There’s not a lot of ambiguity in the clause and the section of the Constitution describing and requiring how a bill becomes law. It’s not ambiguous at all and it’s being shredded here. It is being totally ignored and lawlessness is taking place, unconstitutionality is taking place right in front of our eyes. Now, go back to audio sound bite number three. I want to go back to Obama today at George Mason University, because really what he was doing here was starting his victory lap. He thinks he’s got the votes on Sunday. Here’s what he said about all the people having lying about what’s in his bill.
OBAMA: We have heard every crazy thing about this bill. You remember. First we heard this was a government takeover of health care. Then — then we heeeard that this was going to kill granny. Then we heard, well, eh, ‘Illegal immigrants are going to be getting the main benefits of this bill.’ There — there has been — eh… They have thrown every argument at this legislative effort. But when it — it turns out, at the end of the day, what we’re talking about is commonsense reform. That’s all we’re talking about.
RUSH: Did you notice he didn’t deny anything? He didn’t deny any of that. He just said ‘they’re throwing every crazy thing at it.’ Well, because it’s true. We happen to have read it. The Senate bill does have death panels in it. What do you think all these switches are from? Luis Gutierrez, Illinois, was going to vote ‘no.’ He’s a ‘yes’ now. I wonder why. This is about amnesty and illegal immigrants and getting them health care. Obama is going to need those people to win reelection because he’s going to be so unpopular by 2012, he’s not going to stand a chance unless he has amnesty in those new people.