politics_us-20804565.txt
I’d enjoy reading the citation of constitutional authority for this: “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.” That’s House Majority Leader Eric Cantor describing his “Government Shutdown Prevention Act.” The problem is, this would be blatantly unconstitutional: The Senate needs to pass the same piece of legislation the House does, and the president needs to either sign it or have his veto overturned. That’s how deem-and-pass worked with the health-care law, for instance: Both the Senate and the House passed the same pieces of legislation, and then the president signed them. But it seems Cantor merely misspoke. I’ve clarified with both his office and Boehner’s office that they believe the Senate and the president would still play their traditional roles. That means deem-and-pass isn't, as Cantor suggests, an alternative to actually striking a compromise. It’s just an effort to message the shutdown that’ll happen if a law isn’t passed. The problem for Cantor is that by misdescribing how the gambit would work, he’s drawing attention to the fact that it can’t. At the end of the day, we need an actual deal here. There’s no other option. 
senate, shutdown, pay, unconstitutional, prevention, legislation, president, sign, law, senate, compromise, problem, effort, attention, deal, option
['president', 'passed', 'piece', 'citation', 'deemandpass', 'unconstitutional', 'shutdown thatll', 'signed', 'brings', 'enjoy', 'effort', 'Prevention', 'constitutional', 'Senate', 'Cantor merely misspoke', 'of legislation', 'drawing', 'shutdown', 'legislation', 'misdescribing', 'Cantor', 'HR', 'overturned', 'Government Shutdown Prevention', 'pay', 'addition', 'blatantly unconstitutional']
