One of the two main criteria for nullification to work is passion and the sheer number of states involved. If 20 or more states nullify ObamaCare there would be no way to enforce it. Read on.

The time to step up is now. We fight not just for our country, but for our families and for those not yet born. The information below is voluminous and it is merely a primer. Taking back our country requires understanding the power of the states in contrast to federal power. It requires we grasp the historical context of how the federal government absconded with powers the founders clearly never intended it to possess.

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent implicit case for why nullification is the only way back to federalism and the Tenth Amendment Center provides extensive education and commentary on the subject itself. Let us start with Michelle as she questions the ability of Republicans to lead us out of the sinkhole:

Now, I want you to read every word of what Andy McCarthy has to say about the GOP leadership’s abandonment of Jim Bunning — and what it says about the lack of Republican fortitude in the war against the permanent, ever-growing Nanny State.

Andy speaks the truth. Hard truths. And fiscal conservatives/Tea Party activists need to shout them from the rooftops. I’ve invoked Phyllis Schlafly many times over the past year in urging the GOP to provide true choices instead of echoes. Actions speak louder than words. So, alas, does feckless inaction.

Maine’s Susan Collins took to the Senate floor to assure Americans that Bunning’s radical views about Congress’s not spending yet more billions it doesn’t have “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.” And sure enough, they didn’t. Once Bunning backed down, the measure passed by a whopping 78-19.

Think about that. We are talking about $10 billion in a year when Leviathan is slated to spend a total of $3.6 trillion. The majority of Senate Republicans joined Democrats in concluding that the allocation of every one of these 3.6 thousand billion dollars is so vital that not one of them could be sacrificed in favor of unemployment insurance. So another $10 billion just gets heaped on the already unfathomable trillion-dollar deficits stacking year upon year.

Read the entire post. The realization that salvation exits with neither political party is an a priori and tacit argument the federal government is responsible for creating this mess and cannot, by design, be the architect of solutions to restoring fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. This is not to say principled politicians do not exist in Washington – I can think of a few – but most politicians are just that…politicians. Self-interested, disconnected, contemptuous elitists. For those in the Tea Party, it is a calculated risk that your candidate somehow is cut from a different cloth. In reality, you will fare no better than the average citizen. As I write these words, salivating, power hungry impostors wait to prey on the wishes and dreams of Tea Party members everywhere. I am your candidate, they will say. Even those with honest designs are not immune to the corrupting influence of Washington, for the system is fundamentally broken and it is impossible to remove a sitting member of Congress member. It is not, however, impossible to recall a governor or a state legislator in some states and it is here that Tea Parties, nullification, and real power collide in the perfect storm of the restoration of constitutional governance.

Those of you who follow this blog recall that a group of organizations successfully changed Senate GOP healthcare policy. The history of those efforts are here and cross-posted at Politico. Be forewarned, you will not like the narrative:

After weeks of refusing to embrace the “obstructionist” label as a virtue, Senate Republicans finally saw the light and late last week began to use the parliamentary tools at their disposal to delay a final vote on health care.

Until then, with the exception of South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican lawmakers had refused to use Senate rules and procedures to obstruct the passage of the health care bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and run out the clock on Obamacare. Some prominent Republican senators and members of their staffs had even let it be known they actually believed passage of the Reid health care bill and enactment of Obamacare would benefit GOP candidates in the November midterm elections.

This GOP strategy of expedient complicity enraged the conservative base, roused talk radio show hosts and bloggers and even provoked a backlash from the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Social Security Institute and the National Tax Limitation Committee joined with Tea Party Support and Gun Owners of America to convey this outrage to the Senate Republican leadership through letters, e-mails and telephone calls from the grass roots to GOP senators’ offices.

It took a figurative gun to the collective head of the GOP to add a little starch to collapsing spines. Had the switch occurred just a smidgen later, Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts may well have occurred after the passage of ObamaCare.

To the GOPs credit, they continue to stick to obstruction and the promise of obstruction regarding ObamaCare. Their performance at the bipartisan healthcare “summit” was nothing short of amazing. However, the same tendencies against fiscal restraint still exist for many in the party, as outlined by Michelle in her post.

So what is one to do? The answer – nullification. No, nullification is not secession and no, nullification is not a violent act. The Tenth Amendment Center describes nullification as follows:

First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void…

…There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

More on federal tax escrow accounts and the willingness of federal agents to execute orders deemed unconstitutional below.

For more information about nullification I strongly encourage the reader to visit the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and type in nullification in the search bar. Lots of very interesting reading. Additional information can be found at the Social Security Institute.

The TAC also writes Our Goal is Federalism, not “States’ Rights”:

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence…

…Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

So if I were to ask you to identify the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, the correct answer is not the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather the states themselves. Allowing the U.S. Supreme Court – part of the judicial branch of the federal government – to rule on federal powers presents a problem. Dr. Larry Hunter informs us (emphasis mine):

The resolution explicitly disclaimed that the national government was the judge of its own powers. Allowing it to judge its own powers would be akin to permitting an agent, rather than the principal, to determine the breadth of the agent’s authority. The law of agency at its most basic level recognizes that an agent can act as such only subject to the consent and control of the principal to whom the agent owes a fiduciary duty (see Restatement [Second] of Agency, sec. 1). Just as A, B, and C, the partners in a business firm, decide what authority to give their agent Z, so the parties to the Constitution decide the powers of the national government. In light of such logic, Jefferson proclaimed in the resolution that “each party [to the federal compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measures of redress” (Virginia Commission 1964, 144). For Jefferson, the people acting through their states — the authentic organs of government — were the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation. Jefferson feared that giving the federal government the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution through the Supreme Court would lead to arbitrary government. As John Taylor later wrote in his Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, “a jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction” ([1820] 1970, 131). With the states stripped of the power to construe the Constitution, the enforcement of constitutional limitations on the central government would be chimerical. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the convictions under the Sedition Act were appealed to the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court. The Republicans did not want to give the Court an opportunity to set a dangerous precedent.

If we remain sheep, apathy lays the foundation for us and our descendants of a people enslaved to the whims of a capricious few. Nullification begins with the state legislative and executive bodies, when the previously lorded over sheep transform into self-reliant wolves. It requires of us and our state leaders great strength of character and leadership. If they are not up to the task – we can replace them. At times, we must be prepared to stand with them shoulder-to-shoulder – literally and figuratively. The goal of any nullification movement is critical mass. Using ObamaCare as an example – assuming it passes, if enough states nullify the law and governors coordinate the effort with the will and strength of the people at their backs, ObamaCare will collapse. Federal repercussions will be swift:

When I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,” that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. But, they’ll often ask, even if states pass laws to nullify unjust and unconstitutional federal acts, the feds will still continue to tax us and punish our states financially for not complying – so what can we REALLY do?

One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state governments, is to establish what’s being called a “Federal Tax Escrow Account” or a “State Authority and Federal Tax Funds Act.”

Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people.

Naturally, the U.S. Supreme Court would label such an act unconstitutional, but as stated above, such an action by the Supreme Court amounts to empty words and rhetoric. The natural progression of such actions, given enough states and a determined populace, will be the nonviolent return of federalism. While it is possible events unfold in such a manner leading to a showdown between, for example, national guard troops and/or civilians and the U.S. military, it is highly unlikely the U.S. Military will follow orders that are obviously unconstitutional. After the forceful removal of guns from citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, many in law enforcement and the military began a serious a deliberate debate on the issue. Oath Keepers states the following on their site:

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” — Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army — and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.

Included in the link is a list of orders member will not obey.

We can take great lessons from Martin Luther King, Jr. and his approach to the civil rights movement, as well as Gandhi and the issue of British colonialism in India. A passive-aggressive approach can work if executed correctly.

It is no longer the case that most of us sacrifice for our freedoms. We know of those who did so in the past and do so even today. We honor them on special holidays and then go about our business. Lately, some find themselves prone to attend rallies, send faxes, call and email their federal representatives, only to sit back and watch Washington arrogance ignore our calls for sanity.

It is now clear to many the way forward – the only way forward – is through the states. We may slow our slide into fiscal disaster and European style socialism with leveraged federal pressure, but inaction at the state level – read nullification – we only delay the inevitable. So now is the time to begin. Now is the time to transform.

The sovereignty of the British at the time of the War of Independence was in the Parliament. The founders knew this and ensured the constitution would not allow for concentration in a centralized power for a few to lord over the many. The final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, but rather the states. This is something rarely taught in law school and constitutional courses concentrate on case law and not on the historical context of the founding document itself. When the historical context is reviewed, it is clear, as Jefferson warned, that allowing a federal judicial system to check the federal powers was patently absurd.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written in secret by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Act, which would have jailed them for speaking out against the government, clearly made the above case and the case for nullification. Nullification is not secession – it is a state saying the federal powers have no right to execute a law within the borders of that state. Now look back to the context of the War of Independence. A tiny island off the coast of France has now been replaced by a city in DC. We are back where we started.

Perish as sheep, or thrive as a wolves.

Highly Recommended Reading:

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

Related:

Listen to Judge Napolitano as he talks about nullification and secession. Personally, I don’t believe secession is necessary nor really an option. The very thought of it conjures images of violent battles. Nullification is the peaceful means to taking back our liberties under the Constitution.

More reason to start now: New House Dem strategy on ObamaCare: hostaging

How do you spell “tone-deaf?”; Update: Obama joins the cheerleading squad

State Sovereignty is About You!

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

Nullification: The states have a “nuclear option,” too

Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

Hoyer: We could totally draft an anti-abortion bill that will get considered … by Democrats

Note To GOP: Our Freedoms Are No Longer Negotiable

Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?

So… What Next?

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

The White House is starting to make overtures once again about using Reconciliation in the Senate to force ObamaCare on an unwilling public.

The time to start understanding how to fight this is now. It is near the bottom of the strategy memo from Dr. Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and President and CEO of the Social Security Institute . This approach will require a campaign to bring this to national attention and pressure Republicans to make this an issue. If you are reading this in the future when reconciliation is already under way then it is already too late. There are many Senate insiders and Senators themselves who state the unlikelihood of Senator Reid attempting this violation of minority rights in the Senate, but what if they are wrong? From Dr. Hunter’s Memorandum to the Grassroots.

Senator Harry Reid has put the American people on notice that if the Republican Party does not capitulate and acquiesce to some version of ObamaCare, he will act like a thug and jam it down their throats. The only way to defeat Reconciliation is to be prepared at a moment’s notice to pivot from a localized strategy precisely tailored to threaten targeted Democrats’ weak spots to a national campaign aimed not at the substance of ObamaCare so much as the fairness and political prudence of jamming something as enormous and contentious as healthcare reform down the throats of the American people with fewer than a majority of sitting Senators voting in favor of it. The strategy to defeat Reconciliation must be aimed at the Democratic Party as a whole questioning its judgment, prudence, fairness and wisdom. The task at this point will be to characterize Reconciliation as political thuggery, totally unacceptable in the American democratic process; to raise such national outrage at the strong-arm tactics of Reconciliation that Democrats understand the American People will not tolerate it and will throw them out of office at the first opportunity.

Here is a suggested framework on which to build a strategy against Reconciliation:

Senator Reid threatens to tie dissenting Senators’ hands behind their backs with procedural restrictions on amendments, gag them with strict limits on debate and pummel the long tradition of minority rights in the U.S. Senate by ramming ObamaCare through the Senate with a bare majority or even with fewer than a minimum 51 votes of sitting Senators, if necessary, by having Vice President Biden break a 50-50 tie.

The parliamentary maneuver Senator Reid would use to pass ObamaCare by less than a majority vote of sitting Senators is known as “Reconciliation.” Reconciliation is an extraordinary budgetary procedure designed specifically to ensure passage of an annual budget and avoid a stalemate leading to a complete shutdown of the federal government. Reconciliation was not designed and never intended to circumvent regular order in the Senate to ram through controversial and far-reaching legislation such as healthcare “reform.”

Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, one of the authors of the Reconciliation procedure and foremost authority on the history of Senate rules and procedure describes what happens under Reconciliation this way:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend.”

This is political thuggery—political assault and battery upon the American People pure and simple. Senator Byrd best expresses why using Reconciliation to jam ObamaCare down America’s throat degrades the U.S. Senate and violates the spirit of our system of checks and balances:

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process…With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it…We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right…Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare.”

That is why Senator Byrd says, “I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation.”

What Majority Leader Reid is hiding from the American public is the fact that a huge bipartisan majority of Senators agreed with Senator Byrd, when they were writing this year’s budget resolution back in April, that Reconciliation should not be used to railroad ObamaCare through the Senate.

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Senate Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The DeMint motion to instruct conferees to insist on the 60-vote requirement for healthcare passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. But mysteriously the 60-vote rule was stripped from the resolution in the dead of night, behind closed doors and out of sight of the rest of the Senate and the American People. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, must have fallen asleep during the Conference Committee meeting because he allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Now, Senator Reid stands on the flimsy excuse that the DeMint amendments are irrelevant because they were not in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report. But make no mistake, the 60-vote requirement—which was TWICE voted for by huge, bipartisan majorities in the Senate and did not affect the House—wasn’t in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report ONLY because Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad thumbed his nose at three fourths of his colleagues and took it upon himself contrary to the will of the Senate to unceremoniously strip their 60-vote rule out of the Conference Report.

With one-sixth of the U.S. economy at stake, the Senate should insist upon abiding by its own rule, which it TWICE adopted by overwhelming bipartisan votes. Why would Senator Reid insist upon using a provision the Senate TWICE agreed should NOT be used on healthcare because they knew it wouldn’t be right to pass a bill that divides the nation into feuding factions by a slim 50 votes?

Harry Reid’s argument that he is justified in jamming ObamaCare down America’s throat because there is no rule against it—actually because one rogue Senator took it upon himself to reverse the will and judgment of the entire Senate and eliminate a rule Senators thought was right and appropriate—is the pure sophistry of a tyrant.

The question is, what justifies the Senate in violating its own cherished norms and traditions? Why does Senator Reid refuse to abide by the 60-vote rule on healthcare the Senate TWICE voted to impose on itself by huge bipartisan majorities? Why does Senator Reid ignore the authoritative judgment of fellow Democrat Robert Byrd that it would be wrong, wrong, wrong to steamroller ObamaCare through the Senate under Reconciliation?

If Senator Kent Conrad had performed his duties correctly, then reconciliation would not even be on the table. An point-of-order amendment allows a Senator to raise a point-of-order objection and require the 60-vote requirement be followed. Remember, this passed unanimously. The instruction-to-conferees amendment which passed 79-14 is supposed to require the Senate conferees insist the 60-vote rule be included in the final combined House and Senate budget resolution. Yet it was not.

This is not and never will be a parliamentary argument. However, from a PR perspective, the Democrats can be forced into a defensive posture and answer to the American public why – why do they feel the rest of us must follow rules while they can just chose to ignore them at a whim? It is this elitist “rules for thee but not for me” attitude that turns most of us off to Washington to begin with. And don’t let them slide next year either. We are on to their game -they voted on it once and chose to ignore it. The spirit of the 60-vote rule and minority rights they voted on this year will not just disappear next year. We must insist they follow their own rules now and the spirit of those rules later. No more playing games, not more hiding, and no more dishonesty.

Fairness, abiding by the rules.

Redstate titles the post Even the grizzled Senate Veterans Found this Amazing — Vaporbill:

Vaporbill is a bill that has no legislative language but that is brought up before the Senate and cloture is invoked on a 100% blank bill.

I am not kidding.

One of the most powerful Senate staffers briefed a group of us on it yesterday morning. It is the next logical step to the HELP Committee’s mark-up of a bill not yet written. Why not take a bill to the Senate floor that does not exist?

Just wait till the READ-THE-BILL first crowd gets a hold of Vaporbill.

This is exactly what the Democratic Senate Leadership has in mind. If you were wondering just how-out-of-touch-Congress-could-get — well, now you know: Vaporbill.

Dan Perrin of Redstate then informs readers how the process would play out (via the Heritage Foundation).

Right now, the Senate Finance Committee is in the midst of marking up health care reform “legislation.” Due to Senate procedure, what they are actually marking up is a 200+ page conceptual framework of the actual legislation, not a real bill. That means that not only has no Senator even read the bill but, there is a high probability that the bill hasn’t even been written yet. If the Committee sticks to their artificial deadline of completing work by this Friday then they would have passed a conceptual document reforming the nation’s health care system, spending trillions, without ever seeing an estimated 1,500 pages of legislation, which may or may not be written.

The current plan is to start debate on Obamacare as early as next week under the following four-step scenario:

STEP ONE: The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday. Baucus has not unveiled final legislation and, according to the Associated Press, he added some new language to the mark up today. AP reports that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working class families.”

Senators have not been provided any real legislation and are offering amendments this week to Baucus’ 200+ page outline. It is expected that at the end of the process the Senate Finance Committee may produce a bill longer than the 1,000 page House bill that proved so controversial over the August recess. Many Senators are upset that they don’t have final language for a bill, yet still they sit in a Committee Hearing Room this week marking up a draft document that is not in the form of legislative language. The plan is to have this document voted out of the Senate Finance Committee by Friday.

STEP TWO: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. This was the late Senator Kennedy’s (D-MA) bill, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), which passed the HELP Committee on July 15, 2009 on a party line vote. Remember, most Senators will still not know what they voted for in the Finance Committee.

STEP THREE: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was the bill passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Reid will move to proceed, and he will need 60 votes to act on this bill. After the motion is approved, he will then offer a complete substitute bill purportedly including the combined Senate HELP and Finance Committee products. This means that the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

STEP FOUR: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont), and a potential new member replacing the late Senator Kennedy. This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. According to CQ, the state legislature may pass a bill and present it to Governor Patrick by next week.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure thereby transforming within a few weeks 1/6th of the US economy. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House Leadership may consider using reconciliation to pass the legislation. For a more detailed explanation of the reconciliation scenario, please see the Heritage Foundation’s Fact Sheet on Reconciliation here or a handy guide on Reconciliation published in Human Events earlier today.

Does this sound like a transparent, bipartisan and effective way to change the way millions of Americans get their health care? Of course not.

Larry Hunter of the Social Security Institute has this to say on the matter:

Now the VaporBill piece is making the rounds of the Internet

I have no doubt they may need to do a little striking and inserting in lieu thereof for procedural reasons – I’m not enough of a Senate parliamentarian to know whether they will or not but for the life of me, I can’t see any strategic value in this rigmarole. (Please tell me if I’m wrong so we can light up the Internet.) It surely doesn’t give anyone anywhere to hide because folks like me and the grass roots will cut them a new one with it. My favorite link in the whole chain in the five-step strategy comes in un-enumerated Step 5 in the penultimate paragraph:

“Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure thereby transforming within a few weeks 1/6th of the US economy.”

This casual statement reminds me of my favorite New Yorker cartoon of all times:

If this is an even remote possibility – and I have my doubts due to the monumental backlash that would occur against Democrats in the Senate and House, as well as Obama, then the grassroots needs to contact their Senators and let them know they face political extinction not only if they support this overt disrespect of a legislative process that will affect 1/6 of the nations economy and usurp our personal liberties, but also if they support in any form or fashion using reconciliation to jam this down our throats. Burn up the phone lines as well as the faxes. However, do not take your eye off the ball. As far as I know, this can just be a diversionary tactic. Don’t get me wrong, this needs to be addressed with the weight of the Tea Party movement, but not at the expense of other and more realistic ways of jamming ObamaCare down our throats. Say no to RINOCare and say no to reconciliation.

In other news and opinion:

Videos: Medicare Advantage consumers will lose benefits

How Brave the Meaningless

Me, Myself and I

ObamaCare: Is the GOP finally turning on the mandate?

Harry Reid gives GOP direct warning on healthcare; I give Harry Reid a direct warning: start looking for outplacement services

CBO contradicts Obama on healthcare – again

Dems lied, transparency died: Senate Finance Committee nixes Obamacare online disclosure

Transparency! Democrats Refuse to Post Health Care Bill Online

There is a story making its way through the blogosphere concerning the “white flag” from White House pertaining to the public option. Nobody is buying it. What is being bought is time – time to allow someone to turn the pressure relief valve and time for RHINOCare to make its way out of the Senate Finance Committee. Obama and the liberals in Congress, well aware that co-operatives are a Trojan Horse for a single payer system, are only to happy to assist in keeping the pressure off in the hope of one of two outcomes. The first – by removing pressure from the public, the administration is free to apply its own pressure to ensure a public option. Second, less public pressure increases the chance the RHINOcare option makes its way out of the Senate Finance committee. But as I have said before, there are already procedural amendments in place to kill ObamaCare as long as pressure is brought to bear on five Republican Senators in the Finance Committee. Read on.

Memorize and repeat the following like a mantra:

A cooperative is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare.

Remember these five Senators:

• Chuck Grassley
  United States Senator, Iowa
• Olympia J. Snowe
  United States Senator, Maine
• Susan Collins
  United States Senator, Maine
• Michael Enzi
  United States Senator, Wyoming
• Lindsey Graham
  United States Senator, South Carolina

You can contact them here.

What do they all have in common? All are members of the Senate Finance Committee, the only committee with a chance at a reaching a bi-partisan compromise on health care reform. Many are already touting the end of the public option, which is slated to be replaced by co-operatives. But is this really a victory? The answer is a resounding NO. These five Republicans with an annoying proclivity to reach across the aisle are about to sell out America.

Read the rest of this entry »