Posted on 02/23/2010 1:20:08 PM PST by OldDeckHand
Now that the White House and Democrats are making a last push to pass their so-far-unpassable national health care bills, the only thing that matters is whether they can get 217 votes for victory in the House and 50 votes (plus the vice-president's tie-breaker) for reconciliation in the Senate. Good policy doesn't matter. Bad policy doesn't matter. All that matters is votes.
The White House and Democrats have lost sight of the essential insanity of the process -- desperately searching for corners to cut so they can pass an enormous re-ordering of the American economy that Americans don't want -- because all they can think about now is passing something. It could be anything, as long as it is "comprehensive."
So where are the votes? Start in the House. House Democrats have to do two things. First, they have to pass the health care bill that Senate Democrats passed on December 24 -- Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase and all. They could stop there and send the bill to the president's desk, but that, of course, is not going to happen. So they then have to pass a set of agreed-upon "fixes" to the Senate bill that the Senate would then pass by using the reconciliation process. (The fixes will start in the House; reconciliation bills have to originate in the House because all revenue measures have to originate in the House.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
See #36 tell me where I went wrong ...
Yeah, that's the part that's not accurate. It is a Parliamentary loophole, so to speak. They can pass legislation to reconcile Bills or perspective bills, and not just laws.
"So in essence, the Speaker is holding the passed unsigned not real bill hostage until the Senate signs off on the reconciliation of a non-existent program."
Again, not exactly. The Speaker (in theory) would hold the passed Reconciliation Bill from the President until the House passes the original Senate bill, which the President - by law - must sign first.
"So as I see it, since the Senate passed the bill first, the taxes contained within are un-Constitutional. Followed by the un-Constitutional procedure of not allowing the bill to be signed by the Pres, but held hostage to insure the Senate acts."
Again, according to Judicial precedent, only the Reconciliation Bills - as it's purely a revenue bill must originate in the Congress. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is "And so who in the Senate is going to stop this un-Constitutional procedure? "
Absolutely no one. However, a sitting Senator (amongst other people and other states) certainly would have standing to sue. Such a suit would be heard on the merits, in my estimation.
That's exactly the point. The Senate - because of the filibuster - was limited by Nelson, Lieberman and a couple others. But, because of the Budget Reconciliation process, they only need 50 votes (plus Biden).
Maybe the Senate or House Parliamentarian objects to some of the provisions in the Reconciliation Bill, maybe they don't. It's not an exact science, and the Parliamentarians do have some latitude in making their decisions. Also, rulings of Congressional Parliamentarians are not subject to judicial review, or so has been the tradition.
OK, I accept your view — You seem to know a lot about this Constitutional stuff, is it hobby or ...
Is there anyway to stop this hoaxing of the American people?
Hmmm. That’s interesting. I am not an expert in the rules...I had just read that. What I read was that Biden could do it unilaterally. The SHTF if the Dems pull that.
On the other hand, I can’t see the Parliamentarian ruling against the ruling class in the first place. But, could be a non-partisan office?
Yes, they are both FIERCELY independent, by tradition. As a coincidence, this current Senate Parliamentarian found gainful employment only after the last, long standing Parliamentarian, was fired by Trent Lott about 10 or so years ago when he ruled counter to Lott's wishes.
I think it's likely that at least some of the provisions would be struck by the Parliamentarian. How many remains to be seen.
The number above is for Dept of Homeland Security number.
Scott Brown's number is 202-224-4543
Just fyi....
.
But my understanding of this reconciliation scheme is that it can only be used on a bill that has passed the House and the Senate. That means the House MUST PASS THE SENATE BILL AT SOME POINT.
Isn't that true?
If the House and Senate pass the exact same bill, then it’s game over and on to the President. No further Legislative action. That’s not rules, that’s in the Constitution.
I know that.
But I believe the reconciliation process requires it. They are not reconciling the House Bill vs. the Senate Bill. They are reconciling the Senate Bill. I'm pretty sure that right.
I just saw the bit on Fox. I guess that’s how it works.
As a practical matter, I don’t see the Dems doing it....
"A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted"
Note the "changing existing law". This is why I think that the House has to pass the Senate version and then use the reconciliation process to "fix it".
What did they say on Fox?
Yup. But, we’re a long way from being screwed.
Oh, Fox had a story about how the bill has to pass before reconciliation. What you got from Wiki.
I think so too. The process really doesn't fit the problem.
And my point about the House having to pass the Senate version really relates to the timing of all of this assuming that Pelosi can muster the votes. If the House has to pass the Senate Bill first and then trust that they won't get screwed it seems to me that the whole thing breaks down even if she has the votes (which I don't think she has).
In which case Republican delays in the Senate are USELESS. The Senate version of ObaminationCare would already be law.
Not useless. Could you imagine this resistance if this were a few months ago and Kirk was still a voting Senator from Massachusetts? The delay was just the right thing.
I agree. But my reference was to possible delays in the reconciliation process. What good would that do if ObaminationCare, Senate Version, is already law.
Thanks I must have miss typed it. Will correct it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.