It has been suggested that this article be merged into Standing Rules of the United States House of Representatives. (Discuss)

A self-executing rule is procedural measure used by the U. S. House of Representatives to approve legislation without directly voting on it. The House votes on a rule, and not on the actual legislation; if the rule passes the House deems the related legislation has also passed. 

The procedure can be included in rule adopted by the House Rules Committee to proposed modifications or amendments to a specific bill. When the full House votes to approve a self-executing rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For example, modifications or amendments can be approved while underlying bill is approved at the same time.[1] The self-executing rule has also been referred to in current media reports as the "Slaughter rule," after the current Chair of the House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter.[2]

The procedure is often used to streamline the legislative process, and has been used several times in the past.[3][1] Some legal scholars question whether the process is constitutional.[4][2]

Uses

The self-executing rule began in the 1930s.[4] From the 95th-98th Congresses (1977-1984) the self-executing rule was used eight times, 20 times under Speaker O’Neill in the 99th Congress and 18 times under Speaker Wright in the 100th Congress. Under Speaker Gingrich there were 38 self-executing rules in the 104th Congress and 52 in the 105th Congress (1995-1998). Under Speaker Dennis Hastert there were 40 self-executing rules in the 106th Congress, 42 in the 107th Congress and 30 in the 108th Congress (1999-2007).[5]

In March 2010, the procedure is one option being considered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass the United States Senate health care reform bill, H.R. 3590.[3][6]

Some analyists have questioned the constitutionality of self-executing provisions, despite their having been used by both parties for decades.[4] Some lawyers and public advocacy groups cite the 1998 Clinton v. City of New York Supreme Court case related to the line item veto,[7] and the 1983 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) case related to the legislative veto to support these claims.[2][8] Others point to a 2006 case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia regarding the Deficit Reducation Act, which, in part, ruled in favor of the self-executing provision.[9][4] That ruling was upheld on appeal in 2007, but never argued before the Supreme Court.[10]

See also

Further reading

References

  1. ^ a b Oleszek, Walter J. (December 21, 2006). ""Self-Executing" Rules Reported by the House Rules Committee" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
  2. ^ a b c Barbash, Fred (2010-03-16). "'Slaughter Solution' could face legal challenge". Politico.com. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  3. ^ a b Montgomery, Lori (March 16, 2010). "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved March 16, 2010. ((cite news)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b c d Linkins, Jason (2010-03-16). "Health Care Opponents Demonize 'Deem And Pass' As The Media Gets It Wrong". HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved 2010-03016. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ Wolfensberger, Don (2006-06-19). "House Executes Deliberation With Special Rules". Roll Call. Retrieved 16 March 2010.
  6. ^ "A dizzying array of options to pass health care". Live Pulse Blog. Politico.com. March 9, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
  7. ^ Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (USS 1998).
  8. ^ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (USS 1983).
  9. ^ Public Citizen v. Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 451 F.Supp.2d 109 (DDC 2006).
  10. ^ Public Citizen v. Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 486 F.3d 1342 (CADC 2007).
Category