Just because this is a “long practice to ‘strike and replace’ a House bill in the Senate”, does not mean it is Constitutional. Anyone know if this ‘strike and replace’ has ever been found Constitutional? Maybe not. Sure sounds like a trick to get around the Constitution, which may be “long standing” because both GOP and dems liked the ability to use it, thus no challenges.
As I have conjectured previously, maybe just maybe our much maligned Judge Roberts was actually clever enough to give nobamacare a deadly poison pill when he had it declared a tax.
AND because in the dem’s haste to get this passed before someone jumped ship, they forgot to insert a “severability” clause, which means if any, even a minuscule portion is ruled un-Constitutional, the whole Bill must go back to the House to start again.
To those who say the Constitution or what the SCOTUS may say no longer matters, I say if that’s the true situation, all is already lost and the only recourse will be SHTF R2.
Well, if the practise was done by our Founders, and I suspect it was practised by those who wrote the Constitution, then as a conservative constitutionalist I deem it constitutional.
You may, like the Supreme Court often does, spit upon the judgement of our Founders and reject their practises.