Reconciliation On Health Care (or anything else), How Can You Defend It?

[Care4all]

show me that requirement in the constitution.

Good luck with this one. Now, the spin and name calling will begin.

Once again people are getting off on tangents that dont relate to what I'm saying. You need a 3/5ths vote to END DEBATE in the senate. They can't just go for reconciliation in an effort to shut down the debate, that is not how the rules are set up. I provided a link from projectvotesmart.com which explains very clearly what the senate rules are.

The current senate/admin pushing for this is as wrong as the last one when they wanted to do it against the rules.

The only time you can ignore the 3/5's rule to end debate, under the rules of reconciliation, is with a budget item. This is a new piece of legislation that creates a new beurocracy. When they have to vote on the budget that includes any health care bill that might get passed THEN they can use reconciliation.

They can make ANY RULES THEY WANT to govern themselves, in the Senate and the House, according to the rules.

Reconciliation, which was created in the 70's, and even filibusters, are all rules that they can change any time they want....they are NOT mandatory procedures given to them by the constitution...the constitution gives them the power to determine their own governing rules of their own house.... only on treaties, appointments, and wars does the constitution give the mandatory votes needed for a Bill to pass....and on those, except appointments it is 2/3's of the senate to pass, 67 votes.

Basically,
It is legal, if they say so....

Care

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

if we "provide a bit of it for those folks who need some help" then we are providing the general welfare, not promoting it.

I disagree. If, for example, I PROVIDE free condoms to AIDS infected prostitutes and encourage them to have their johns use them, I a PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare of society as a whole. got it? good.

According to you you're PROVIDING for the general welfare. Now if you were out educating people on safe sex you would be promoting it but by PROVIDING fee condoms you are providing for safe sex, not promoting it.

I'm done chasing tails. back to the topic.

 

[boedicca]

They can make ANY RULES THEY WANT to govern themselves, in the Senate and the House, according to the rules.

Reconciliation, which was created in the 70's, and even filibusters, are all rules that they can change any time they want....they are NOT mandatory procedures given to them by the constitution...the constitution gives them the power to determine their own governing rules of their own house.... only on treaties, appointments, and wars does the constitution give the mandatory votes needed for a Bill to pass....and on those, except appointments it is 2/3's of the senate to pass, 67 votes.

Basically,
It is legal, if they say so....

Care

But to change the rules requires a super majority according to the Senate Rules.

 

[Missourian]

so... in other words, you're too chicken to bet? I understand. As my grandfather used to say, all hat and no cattle.

Why wouldn't Republicans pass all those things by reconciliation?

I dunno...maybe because they want to remain a viable political party? just a guess.

but if you want a piece of that bet, just say so.

After you and Pilgrim are done I'll get back to you on this.

 

[beowolfe]

The "nuclear" Option, Reconciliation, a simple majority vote....whatever you want to call it how can people justify bastardizing our political system like this. Health Care reform is HUGE, its 1/6th of our economy! Its too big for these shenanigans.

I'll start this with my outrage at the tactic and I want people who support it to go ahead and defend it. I want a debate on this.

This is not a debate on a need for healthcare or the actual bill itself, it is a debate on using Reconciliation.


A short recommended read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

it's not for us to defend. That's the job of the Senate (not the Dems or GOP but the entire senate). It's their rule. BTW, reconcilliation is NOT the nuclear option. The nuclear option (created by the GOP and Cheney during Dubya's administration) was the threat to get rid of the filibuster.

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators or invoking reconciliation.

It amazes me how little people know about recent events.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Good luck with this one. Now, the spin and name calling will begin.

Once again people are getting off on tangents that dont relate to what I'm saying. You need a 3/5ths vote to END DEBATE in the senate. They can't just go for reconciliation in an effort to shut down the debate, that is not how the rules are set up. I provided a link from projectvotesmart.com which explains very clearly what the senate rules are.

The current senate/admin pushing for this is as wrong as the last one when they wanted to do it against the rules.

The only time you can ignore the 3/5's rule to end debate, under the rules of reconciliation, is with a budget item. This is a new piece of legislation that creates a new beurocracy. When they have to vote on the budget that includes any health care bill that might get passed THEN they can use reconciliation.

They can make ANY RULES THEY WANT to govern themselves, in the Senate and the House, according to the rules.

Reconciliation, which was created in the 70's, and even filibusters, are all rules that they can change any time they want....they are NOT mandatory procedures given to them by the constitution...the constitution gives them the power to determine their own governing rules of their own house.... only on treaties, appointments, and wars does the constitution give the mandatory votes needed for a Bill to pass....and on those, except appointments it is 2/3's of the senate to pass, 67 votes.

Basically,
It is legal, if they say so....

Care

Correct but they do need a 2/3's vote to change the rules, punish a member, or expel a member according to Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution. That means they need 67 senators to vote on changing the rules in order to allow a vote on health care using reconciliation/nuke/simple majority.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

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.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

I know someone is going to say the 2/3 is only for kicking members out so I will pre-emt that comment by pointing out the lack of a period in that statement. They need 2/3s for all 3 actions.

 

[Care4all]

They can make ANY RULES THEY WANT to govern themselves, in the Senate and the House, according to the rules.

Reconciliation, which was created in the 70's, and even filibusters, are all rules that they can change any time they want....they are NOT mandatory procedures given to them by the constitution...the constitution gives them the power to determine their own governing rules of their own house.... only on treaties, appointments, and wars does the constitution give the mandatory votes needed for a Bill to pass....and on those, except appointments it is 2/3's of the senate to pass, 67 votes.

Basically,
It is legal, if they say so....

Care

But to change the rules requires a super majority according to the Senate Rules.

on some things, yes...or for the most part, yes....unless they decide it not to be.

As example, when Republicans were trying to keep the Democrats from filibustering Judicial appointments, the Republicans threatened with the "nuclear option"....to rid them of the filibuster by changing the rules with just 51 votes and not the super majority vote....I am uncertain how they determined they could get around the super majority rule, but I am guessing that there is obviously legitimate rules around the rules or the Republicans would not have made the threat of the nuclear option.

 

[beowolfe]

They can make ANY RULES THEY WANT to govern themselves, in the Senate and the House, according to the rules.

Reconciliation, which was created in the 70's, and even filibusters, are all rules that they can change any time they want....they are NOT mandatory procedures given to them by the constitution...the constitution gives them the power to determine their own governing rules of their own house.... only on treaties, appointments, and wars does the constitution give the mandatory votes needed for a Bill to pass....and on those, except appointments it is 2/3's of the senate to pass, 67 votes.

Basically,
It is legal, if they say so....

Care

But to change the rules requires a super majority according to the Senate Rules.

Apparently you're wrong where the filibuster is concerned.

 

[maineman]

Why wouldn't Republicans pass all those things by reconciliation?

I dunno...maybe because they want to remain a viable political party? just a guess.

but if you want a piece of that bet, just say so.

After you and Pilgrim are done I'll get back to you on this.

Oh...we're done.

 

[boedicca]

Apparently you're wrong where the filibuster is concerned.

Apparently you haven't provided any proof to back up your claim.

 

[boedicca]

on some things, yes...or for the most part, yes....unless they decide it not to be.

As example, when Republicans were trying to keep the Democrats from filibustering Judicial appointments, the Republicans threatened with the "nuclear option"....to rid them of the filibuster by changing the rules with just 51 votes and not the super majority vote....I am uncertain how they determined they could get around the super majority rule, but I am guessing that there is obviously legitimate rules around the rules or the Republicans would not have made the threat of the nuclear option.

That threat did backfire on the GOP. In general, the moderating effect of requiring 60, or in some cases, 2/3 votes is an important check and balance on pure majority "mob" rule. It's a dangerous precedent for either party to "go nuclear".

I'm not liking where ObamaCare is heading us by destroying that improtant check and balance.

 

[maineman]

[I know someone is going to say the 2/3 is only for kicking members out so I will pre-emt that comment by pointing out the lack of a period in that statement. They need 2/3s for all 3 actions.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

 

[keee keee]

I agree with what Obama said during his run for the presidency. He was clearly against reconcilation when the repubs wanted to use this for judicial appointments!!!! Of was he lying when he said that? He said it numerous times in many speeches what happened to change his views? is this an example of a Kerry FLIP FLOP or a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The true identity of Obama is being revealed. Liar, imposter, fraud!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

since when did passing a bill by a majority vote become unamerican?

so you'd be OK with a 51 to 50 vote in favor of making abortion illegal again?

Or the same margin reinstating the draft?

Or the same margin tampering with the bill of rights?

After all Mob rule is the essence of a democratic republic right?

 

[boedicca]

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement - refer to Rule 22.

 

[maineman]

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement.

got a link?

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement - refer to Rule 22.

The writers of the Constitution were wise enough to realize that a simple majority is not the way to govern the people.

 

[maineman]

since when did passing a bill by a majority vote become unamerican?

so you'd be OK with a 51 to 50 vote in favor of making abortion illegal again?

Or the same margin reinstating the draft?

Or the same margin tampering with the bill of rights?

After all Mob rule is the essence of a democratic republic right?

abortion illegal? not a legislative issue... but a judical one.

the draft? no problem

the bill of rights? the constitution is quite clear on the procedures for amending the constitution.

legislation before congress? I am perfectly fine with a simple majority... and so is the constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

since when did passing a bill by a majority vote become unamerican?

so you'd be OK with a 51 to 50 vote in favor of making abortion illegal again?

Or the same margin reinstating the draft?

Or the same margin tampering with the bill of rights?

After all Mob rule is the essence of a democratic republic right?

abortion illegal? not a legislative issue... but a judical one.

the draft? no problem

the bill of rights? the constitution is quite clear on the procedures for amending the constitution.

legislation before congress? I am perfectly fine with a simple majority... and so is the constitution.

All laws are first a legislative issue

How about making slavery legal again by a 51 vote majority?

And since this so called health care reform bill will be tantamount to calling health care a right, should it not be treated as a Constitutional amendment?

 

[Missourian]

so... in other words, you're too chicken to bet? I understand. As my grandfather used to say, all hat and no cattle.

Why wouldn't Republicans pass all those things by reconciliation?

I dunno...maybe because they want to remain a viable political party? just a guess.

but if you want a piece of that bet, just say so.

So Democrat will remain a viable political party when they use reconciliation to pass their agenda...but the Republicans wouldn't.