What is interesting is these house liberals are using the exact same language Mark Levin did when calling for the same change in rules but only for confirmations of judges. They claim a rule requiring greater that 51 votes is unconstitutional because it requires more than the minority.
If the gang of 14 hadn’t stopped a change in rules in 2006, we would have single payer already.
Yesterday they at MSNBC claimed a change in Senate rules takes 67 votes which contradicts both points above.
Madison’s notes on the convention confirm all the above. Probably gives one the best insight into the meaning of the text of the 1789 Constitution. Of course, the 14th and 16th Amendments do change that vision, but not to the extent that centralizers such as Frank would have it.
Just wondering - Isn’t it considered a breach of etiquette for a member of the House to try to tell the Senate how to run its business?