Jim,
I respect your well informed opinion on this issue.
I am getting to a deeper meaning, challenging political orthodoxy and just getting an idea out there.
Historical House voting data, shows Republicans rarely have the higher 60 member voting majority, that Democrats achieve more frequently. If 60 is accepted as the ‘legitimate’ threshold, Democrats can pass more bills over time, and the tendency is for ever bigger Government, over time. That is the historical data.
‘Legitimacy’ is a subjective idea. A State administrator knows displaying a sign, “Stay off the grass”, true or false, people are more likely to follow a sign. Wearing a “Big White Hat” adds legitimacy to a salesman.
The declaration, “60 votes required”, adds legitimacy, again, true or false. But it really takes a 51 simple majority, to even “set the 60 rule”.
All life ‘rules’ are subject to legitimacy bias. A moral person needs less of rules. He is guided by right & wrong. But for common people, declare a ‘rule’ in a schoolyard, card game or politics, more people go along, whether true or false.
‘60 votes’ threshold kind of dooms Republicans each decade with Bigger Government, historically.
Only 2/3 super majority for ‘veto override’ is truly legitimate. Other legislative items are subject to a vague legitimacy bias.
Pelosi’s initial Obamacare, ‘deemed’ passed declaration, was an amateur attempt to change what is legitimate. She tried to informally change the rules, but just for that bill.
Repealing ‘Government Care’ slavery is of critical importance. A broad arsenal of tools is required, including challenging what is truly legitimate.
For this particular case, 60 is not sacred. And rules are not sacred. Patriots are allowed to push this idea too.
You are correct. Thanks.