Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. Is there something wrong with majority rules? Mr. Gregg asked. I dont think so.
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.
Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?
Reeeeeally?
Identify the proviso by Article, section and clause.
.
It's in the design - it's why we have three branches of government. The design is intended to make it difficult to change the status quo based upon temporal popular whim.
Socialized healthcare is a total reorganization of our Society. It should not be allowed just on a simple majority. This action should require an amendment to the constitution since it affects all of our lives.majority rule is totally evil, if you are in the minority.
burp
For me and others it always depends on what constitutes a majority. I think 51/49 is always a recipe for disaster or an unsound foundation. It doesn't always mean I think the 51 were wrong, only that as time goes by, the 51 needs to convince more of the 49 that they were right.
A simple majority is not the same things as a large majority or overwhelming majority. Nuance is needed. The very thing the neo anti-reconciliation folks are asking for now: nuance.
How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. Is there something wrong with majority rules? Mr. Gregg asked. I dont think so.
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. Is there something wrong with majority rules? Mr. Gregg asked. I dont think so.
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.
Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reconciliation as a congressional prerogative for the majority to ram its agenda down the minority's throats. Elections have consequences, and we are facing one of them now. The Democrats will have to swallow the same bitter pill when the Republicans take the Senate back, as they surely will.
How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. Is there something wrong with majority rules? Mr. Gregg asked. I dont think so.
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
s0n.........do all bears sh!t the same volume in the woods???
Ive been following politics for 35 years..........have yet to find a principled liberal. Not a one.............and this issue is a perfect illustration of that. The government forcing somebody to buy something is totally unconstitutional...........but then again, what liberal gives a sh!t about the constitution???
Heres the poop............reconcilliation has NEVER been used on public policy of this magnitude. And the situation is a win-win for conservatives either way the vote goes. Pass = the Dums get bushwacked in November. Fail = our healthcare system is saved.
I would LOVE to use majority rule...we should let the country vote on healthcare. As long as we can keep ACORN's cast of Disney characters out of the voting booths and require proof of citizenship, we might actually get a decent representation of the desires of the American people.
Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.
Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?
How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. Is there something wrong with majority rules? Mr. Gregg asked. I dont think so.
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reconciliation as a congressional prerogative for the majority to ram its agenda down the minority's throats. Elections have consequences, and we are facing one of them now. The Democrats will have to swallow the same bitter pill when the Republicans take the Senate back, as they surely will.
never said reconcilliation was unconstitutional s0n..........
Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.
Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?
Has anyone heard of this actually discussed as a viable option?
Cite where in the constitution it gives the different cases.It is what the constitution outlines.
not really. not in all cases.
Correct. Reconciliation is supposed to be used ONLY when legislation is needed to pass something that is Constitutionally required - like a budget. Healthcare reform is NOT constitutionally required. I hope the Republicans contact the Supreme Court and put a stop to this illegal action on the part of the so-called Progressives.How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.
Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?
