Replies

As I understand it, if the rule is passed, then the Senate bill (in identical language) is passed. That's why they are using reconciliation measures to make changes. They know they have to vote on the Senate bill as is, but want the changes enacted simultaneously, so they create a rule that serves as a vote on the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill at the same time.

Clinton v. City of New York struck down the presidential line-item veto.

As I understand it, if the rule is passed, then the Senate bill (in identical language) is passed. That's why they are using reconciliation measures to make changes. They know they have to vote on the Senate bill as is, but want the changes enacted simultaneously, so they create a rule that serves as a vote on the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill at the same time. Clinton v. City of New York struck down the presidential line-item veto.

The main subject matter of Clinton vs. New York does not restrict the ruling on the requirement for an "exact text" to be passed by both Houses for a Bill - that was a ruling on requirements for any Bill, not just the presidential line-item veto.

As for the legal justification of the "simultaneous enacting" of reconciliation changes, such an effort fails in both directions.

First, if it (simultaneity) is invoked through the power of reconciliation, it fails because it both exceeds the explicit budgetary topic limitation of reconciliation by also attempting to pass the legislation of the bill itself, and violates it's requirement that the bill it reconciles has - already - not only been passed by both Houses of Congress, but also signed into law by the president.

Second, if it (simultaneity) is invoked through the power of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, it fails because that Section states "the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." Note that the votes must be entered for and against the Bill itself - not some reference to the Bill. So that means this "reconciliation vote" cannot meet that 1/7 requirement, because it is specifically NOT a vote on the Bill itself - Pelosi is even bragging about this point.

So as I can't see how simultaneity can be successfully defended, and the Court has already shown it will rule at least on the requirement that 1/7 be strictly followed, I see SCOTUS striking down this "law" (if it Obama ever gets to sign it) as never passed by both Houses, and thus void.

As I understand it, if the rule is passed, then the Senate bill (in identical language) is passed. That's why they are using reconciliation measures to make changes. They know they have to vote on the Senate bill as is, but want the changes enacted simultaneously, so they create a rule that serves as a vote on the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill at the same time.

So if I am to understand this correctly, in a convoluted way, they are giving the bill an up or down, Yea or Nay vote. It is like saying this:

I vote for bill A, which means by proxy I vote for bill B.

However, it's not the exact language of the constitution, which says in the Article 1, Section 5, "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."

Which means the GOP should be able to force them to vote on it with a handful of members.

And the Clinton v. City of New York (1998) Line Item Veto case does set precedent that the Court may rule on procedure, since it did make the comment "the bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’".

I think it's enough of a stretch to tie it up in courts and force an injunction against implementation.