☭proletarian☭;2061377 said:
Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..
huh?
I don't see what you see
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I don't see anything in the section that governs "legislative process" that prohibits or limits the Senate from using a simply majority vote on this issue.
And just think -Senators have been doing it all wrong all this time. All they really need is just 51 votes!! Who knew? ROFLMAO. Except you must have overlooked that sticky part in the Constitution that places no restrictions at all on how long a bill can be debated before it must face a vote. Which technically allows for UNLIMITED debate in the Senate on any bill. Which would mean a single Senator could refuse to allow a bill -or ANY bill -to ever come to a vote in the Senate even if the overwhelming majority of Senators favored passage of that bill by simply refusing to stop debating it -or filibustering it. Don't kid yourself, the founders knew this but they also knew they put in the means for self-correction. The reason they were able to set it all out for the creation of a brand new system of government in just 16 pages is because they didn't get bogged down in the minutiae of it all. (Which just BEGS the question of how is it possible to create an entirely new system of GOVERNMENT in just 16 pages, but that government needs more than 2,700 pages to figure out how to help a small minority of people get health care insurance and still can't do it without destroying the system for the overwhelming majority who are satisfied with how it works for them!!!)
It is why the founders also specified that both Houses had the authority to set up their own rules for procedures in their business beyond those specified in the Constitution. And one of those rules the Senate created for itself was Rule XXll and did so in order to prevent a single person or a small minority from holding up a bill that was heavily favored. Keep in mind without this rule the health care bill stood zero chance of ever seeing the light of day because it would only take one person to filibuster it to death. But with Rule XXll, if 2/3 of the Senators vote for cloture -meaning if 2/3 of the Senators vote in favor of ending debate -a bill can be brought to the floor for a vote. Even if a small minority strongly oppose it.
Now how many do you really think it takes to pass a bill in the Senate? Technically and without bothering to understand what the practice really means, you could claim that a mere 51 Senators could pass any bill they want and just steamroll over anyone in their way. But they couldn't before and they still can't now. Prior to Rule XXll, to absolutely guarantee the passage of a bill it would have taken all 100 Senators. ANY even slightly controversial bill would never pass and if a single Senator were unhappy about the bill it would not pass. But now as the result of Rule XXll it takes 2/3 of Senators to pass a bill in PRACTICE -or 60 votes. Senators are not stupid people. They don't vote for cloture on any bill they don't want to see passed or strongly oppose. That is how it works in the Senate. So while the Constitution doesn't specify the Senate needs at least 2/3 to pass a bill
in practice they do first because of the unlimited debate clause in the Constitution and now because of Rule XXll. And that will never be changed to ANYTHING that would ever allow just 51 Senators to pass legislation and create new law with a significant and 49 member opposition. NEITHER party would EVER agree to change that rule that would allow just 51 Senators to bring about cloture on a bill. Not only would it be political suicide, it would render THEM 100% useless, powerless and irrelevant anytime they lost the majority and even if they still held 49 of those 100 seats.
The fact the Senate changed a rule that would allow a simple majority to handle budget matters was NEVER intended to be used to pass legislation, especially not significant legislation of this magnitude. That fact was agreed upon at the time which is why there are rules about what does and does not fall under reconciliation and why Robert Byrd, the creator of this measure even said using reconciliation to pass this bill would be WRONG. Reconciliation has a limit on debate of just 20 hours and requires zero votes to end debate. Just the notion Democrats will try to ram this bill through and allowing ONLY 20 hours of debate -less than 3 working days for a LIFE ALTERING MONSTROSITY like this just goes to show the sheer ARROGANCE of Democrats and their CONTEMPT for WE THE PEOPLE as well as for our system of government. Maybe Byrd still has enough on the ball to realize what other Democrats seem to have overlooked when he urged Dems not to do this.
Trying to use reconciliation to pass something of this magnitude -if successful -will end up biting Democrats in the ass big time because it will open the door to allow the passage of just about ANY bill the majority wants and render the minority party irrelevant entirely. You use it once to muscle through a hugely unpopular piece of crap legislation like this and any time Republicans want to pass ANYTHING Democrats oppose -they have the example of how it is perfectly acceptable! And even if Democrats are a 49 member minority, they become irrelevant. The very tyranny of the minority by government the founders specifically sought to prevent and was circumvented by DEMOCRATS who will no doubt go to their grave insisting it was what reconciliation was created for.
And no one in their right mind is stupid enough to believe Democrats will hold the majority forever are they?
