From the exclusive with Bret Baier today:
Obama said the the debate over the deals “ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington process.”
With all due respect – and that’s not much, incidentally – the focus is on both process and substance. The only reason the anticonstitutionalist leadership in Congress believes it must resort to anticonstitutional procedures is because Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Emanuel all know that SB3200 is rejected by a very large majority of Americans and a suitable number of congresspeople precisely because of what’s in the bill. That we know about. And there may be a great deal more in there that we would reject if we knew about it.
A great deal of the Constitution deals precisely with process, and it’s too bad that the President – who swore to protect and defend the Supreme Law of the Land against all domestic enemies – admits to being unconcerned about how things are done in Washington. I, for one, care tremendously how things are done as well as what is done. And now, apparently, Chuck-U Schumer is interested in ignoring the plain meaning of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the very specific procedural requirements in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, in order to claim that the rules each house of Congress adopts for its proceedings supersedes the Constitution’s procedural provisions.
Sound procedure, and hewing to procedural rules established a priori, is a sine qua non for the maintenance of trust. But process ain’t what all the fuss is about. It’s both process and substance, stupid!
P. S. Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation have prepared a lawsuit in the event the Slaughter Rule is used to “pass” SB3200. May his tribe increase.
P. S. Let’s just start with a two-sentence addition to the McCarran-Ferguson Act:
“Nothing in this statute shall be construed to prohibit the marketing or sale of insurance products across state lines. No State government shall adopt any law or regulation that abridges the right of its residents to purchase insurance products from providers located in another State, or that imposes discriminatory and/or anti-competitive burdens on providers located in another state.”