Deemed Passed

The Speaker of the House seems to realize the toxicity of a vote for the healthcare reform bill in the coming election. So, she suggests an end run on the need to actually put your name on the bill and state your position relative to it:

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Madame Speaker, it isn't more process-oriented that most people want to know. We actually do want to know who votes for it so that they can be held accountable. We want to know who stands where. We want it visible and dare I say transparent so that we can say, "ahhh, the Constitution is still serving us well." For that matter we want to see a bill, an actual text file of a piece of legislation which will be voted upon and we would like to see it before the vote is taken. We DO want to know.

I would think that reasonable people in the House would be against the "deem and pass" self-executing rule. Those who oppose the bill and are in step with their constituents would clearly benefit from being able to stand up and point to their vote whichever way it turns out. But if this gets stuffed down our throats under this no-vote required option that means that every single one of the Democrats will be assumed to have been in favor of it.

Simple self-preservation instinct should come into play here.

And Article I, Section 5, paragraph 3:

3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.