| I don't see the legal reason why Obama can't simply sign the Senate bill, as written, after the House approves it.
That's why many in the House insist that the Senate go first. It is doubtful that there are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill as written, without iron-clad guarantees that certain changes will be made by the Senate afterward. The proposal is to use reconciliation to pass the changes, but there are two reasons that can't be done. First, one of the big changes involves the Stupak amendments guaranteeing that the legislation does not cover abortion. That's not in the Senate bill. Nor is it a "budget" issue, meaning it can't be the subject of reconciliation. So Stupak and his allies have no reason to believe that their concerns will be addressed. They are therefore likely to vote 'no' unless the Senate goes first and adopts serious anti-abortion language. Secondly, although reconciliation only requires 51 votes to pass the bill, the process allows for an infinite number of amendments. Each of those also requires 51 votes. By throwing one amendment after another into the gears, the Republicans can tie the Senate in knots through November. The only way to halt the amendments is with — wait for it — 60 votes. This article, and others like it, are a circus act designed to pacify the Donks' base. They can't pass this thing and they know it. But they're gonna 'try' a whole bunch, and then blame the Republicans when it doesn't pass. It's over, folks. We dodged the bullet again. No president will try this again for another 20 years. |
You are correct: once both houses pass the same bill, the president can sign it and it becomes law.