Talk:Self-executing rule

Current Discussion

History of Usage

The current "Uses" section is a little brief. This article would be significantly more informative if it was augmented with a table of usage or some other kind of better enumerated list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.56.68 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• That would be nice in we had the info.--Fakt Checker (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous Discussions

Deeming resolution

Not sure if a "deeming resolution" is the same as a "self-executing rule". The two phrases do not appear to synonymous. Deeming has been around for centuries but the actual House rule as it applies here was instituted in the 1970s and named "self-executing rule". Would like more input on this and may be add a link regarding the phrase "deeming resolutions". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.78.159 (talk • contribs)

• For all intents and purposes they are the same procedure. They have different terminology, but "deeming" resolutions and "self-executing rules" both work the same way. DCmacnut<> 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a redirect from "Deeming resolution" and/or "Deemed as passed" and/or whatever term the pundits are using today. I'm leaving this up to you expects and not being bold because, once a name is in the article space, you have to go through a sysop to get rid of it. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Deem and pass already redirects to self-executing rule. Perhaps "deeming resolution" should redirect to here as well? --→James Kidd(contr/talk/email) 00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional & Practical Argument

Two SCOTUS cases indicate a precedent that the Constitutionality of deem & pass is questionable; Clinton v. New York City (199888)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-1374 and INS v. Chandra (1983)http://supreme.justia.com/us/462/919/case.html. Both cases refer to "represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure." How should these be reflected in the entry? Also a summary by the Congressional Research Service in 2006 of the self-executing rule tradition, contemporary use and history of controversial usage: http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by68.223.42.29 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Those cases are not relevant to this issue. The Chandra case had to do with the legislative veto, which allowed Congress could unilaterally override federal regulations via a concurrent or simple resolution (which doesn't require the President's signature). The Court ruled such activity unconstitutional. Congress is still able to do this, in some cases, but they are required to use a joint resolution, which has the power of a public law and must be signed by the President.

Clinton v New York City has to do with the line item veto, which allowed the President to unilaterally strike sections of a appropriations laws he didn't agree with. The Court ruled that the President must either sign the entire law or veto the entire law, he can't pick and choose which sections he agrees with.

In both of these cases, the Court ruled that neither Congress nor the President can act on a public law without the other. Congress must pass and the President must sign or veto. In the case of a self-executing rule, it merely a parlimentary procedure used for final passage. The courts ruled in Public Citizen v. Clerk, US District Court in 2006, which questioned the validity of a bill signed into law, in part, because it was approved by a "self-executing rule" resolution concurring with the senate amendment.H.Res. 653. The courts ruled the law was valid as being passed by the House and Senate.[1][2]DCmacnut<> 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The cases are relevant to the question of Constitutionality of Deem & Pass. Both line-item veto and legislative were overturned because they did not strictly comply with Article I Sec 7 provisions of how a bill becomes a law, and both cases used very similar language: "The Article I procedures governing statutory enactment were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only "be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure." Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951 . What has emerged in the present cases, however, are not the product of the "finely wrought" procedure that the Framers designed, but truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses. Pp. 17-24." (From Clinton v. New York).'Italic textThat language goes beyond the specifics of a line-item veto or legislative veto and instead sets for the Courts opinion on how federal statutes are passed. Indeed even though line-item veto is different than legislative veto SCOTUS referred to the earlier case and used the same language in the Clinton v. New York ruling. This seems relevant at least from a potential Constitutional question and has been reported in several newspapers as a potential roadblock, the 2005 case never went to the Supreme Court so was never contested on that level while the Healthcare bill, according to many reports, seems in part destined for that road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by68.223.42.29 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to Politico's reporting of the possible conflict wherein it cites the 1983 and 1998 cases when saying "Any challenge likely would be based on two Supreme Court rulings, one in 1983 and the other in 1998, in which the court held that there is only one way to enact a law under the Constitution: it must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president." that could be used as a citation as well as links to the SCOTUS documents. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by68.223.42.29 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Wikipedians are not the Supreme Court nor are we constitutional lawyers (at leat I'm not). We can only report what other verifiable sources have stated. When it comes to actual court cases, we can only report what the cases say verbatim, and cannot put any original research in analyzing them. The Politico article you mention provides a verifiable, reliable source of one persons view of the issue, but it would need to be added in a way that presents aneutral point-of-view. As I mentioned above, a different 2006 case before the US District Court of Appeals for DC ruled "deem and pass" to be constitutional, as reported by the HuffingtonPost. However, the person quoted in the Politico article is the same lawyer that represented Public Citizen as plantiff in the 2006 case. Their argument was that "deem and pass" is unconstitutional in his filings. The court ruled against them. In that case, 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. 672-73. 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.”Page 3

Each House determines the rules of its own proceedings, including how bills are approved. The Supreme Court in the above cases never required there be an up or down vote on a bill in order for it to be passed by Congress. Otherwise bills approved by unanimous consent in the Senate would then be suspect. But, that is just this one editor's view, and our views should stay out of the article. Courts are the ultimate arbiter of what's constitutional, not Wikipedians.DCmacnut<> 17:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Would a neutral point of view be then to just put up non-POV content that includes all the cases and links, and verifiable reports from news sources that lays out the countering arguments? I'm putting this on discussion first because I'm new to this and don't want to put the wrong thing up an actual article without discussing it first. What would be some good text that relates both points of view and cites both Politico and Huffington Post? --Tim C. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 68.223.42.29 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added a "Legal Arguments" section, which simply cites the cases in question and references various analysits view of what they mean, including the legal that seems to contradict those statements. It makes it clear that it is the analysists interpretation of the cases, and not the cases themselves, that are calling into question the legality/constitutionality of this type of rule.DCmacnut<> 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. The Court cases are primary sources. Wikipedia requires the use of secondary sources, so these court cases cannot be used as reliable sources regarding claims of constitutionality/unconstitutionality. They, however, are relevant, and are provide as primary references. Any sources that make any legal claims regarding this procedure, should be properly cited from 3rd party sources.DCmacnut<>13:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that works well - I've found additional 3rd party sources, but most then quote a politician from either party as claiming X and Y, so I think the way you presented it is probably best and maintains the neutral POV. Thanks!!--TimC —Preceding unsigned comment added by68.223.42.29 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Slaughter rule inclusion?

Should this be included? It seems to suggest that this rule was created by Louise Slaughter, when in fact it has nothing to do with her. It was used before she was even in congress. The only relation is that she is the current chair of the Rules Comm. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think it should be in there. It's too much recentism in my book. It also has a certain POV-bent to it, since it is a GOP-created term to attack the procedure. But, enough reliable sources have reported on the use of the term that I think a neutral reference is appropriate to keep the article balanced.DCmacnut<> 20:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[Remove]I removed it because content that is encyclopedic is timeless. That name is obviously not going to exist even in 6 months since (for the next 9 months or so) almost every rule will be a Slaughter rule. 0¹⁸ (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[Remove] Thanks. I agree and would have done it myself, but I've made so many edits to this page already to remove POV, that it pays to have another set of eyes on it.DCmacnut<> 01:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[Remove] I agree, should not be included. Thanks 0¹⁸ (talk) --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

References

please explain

Perhaps I am just dense, but I don't get it. Does "deem and pass" just mean that the house votes on two laws at the same time, either passing both or neither? (If so, wouldn't such a formulation simplify the first paragraph?) Or does it additionally mean that the second law is not discussed before the vote? Are laws combined with amendments the typical case, or is it more customary to use "deem and pass" for unrelated issues (similar to riders)? --Austrian (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)