Because, in order to use reconciliation to push pass obstructionism, Senate Rules require that the underlying bill to be amended (Bill A) be approved by both Houses.
This is why the House has to vote on the Senate Bill (Bill A) even though they don’t want it; the Senate doesn’t want it; and the Administration doesn’t want it. But the GOP has 41 Senators, and are throwing these procedural roadblocks in the way of reform.
I concur with your inference the procedure is constitutional. However, I do not think it is accurate to suggest everything gets voted on. The original Senate bill is not voted on. The original Senate bill is not passed on the basis of votes for or against it but rather the passage of the original Senate bill is contingent upon the passage of another bill which is being voted on, another bill receiving votes for or against it.
I actually like the Field abstention rule, and I do not think the rule is as prohibitive as some in the legal field suggest. United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) limits the applicability of Field.
Okay…this is what I thought the answer would be but I wanted to make sure. This is the only answer which made sense but I was not certain, so I wanted to see what you had to say. Thanks.
I don’t see how that addresses McConnell’s concern. They would be voting on a rule of procedure that would not be permitted by the Constitution, he might say. There would still be a single measure combining two things that should remain separate; that single measure does not, by itself, equate with the unamended Senate bill, which the Constitution requires (again, per McConnell).
How about a rough analogy from the law of contracts?
I’m a widget retailer, and I need more inventory. I meet up with a widget producer, and he offers me Contract A, which he has already signed. I don’t like the terms too much (say, the financing plan is not something that works best for me), but I definitely need to restock.
So, we talk through better terms and draw up Contract B. The producer can’t sign Contract B yet; he has to talk to his boss, etc.
I prefer Contract B to A, and I prefer A to nothing at all. So we add a term at the bottom of Contract B, that says “if the widget producer is unable to agree to the financing terms listed above, the financing terms of Contract A are to apply”.
I now sign Contract B.
Haven’t I agreed to the terms of Contract A?
I don’t believe the constitution should be interpreted in such a formalistic way. Everything that passes and becomes law would have been voted on by a majority of both houses, and presented to the President for his signature.
I disagree when it applies to the forms specifically prescribed by the Constitution. I understand that there’s disagreement as to whether or not the Slaughter rule runs afoul of the procedural requirements in the Constitution. But surely it’s valid to debate form when discussing an issue of form, and the Constitution certainly covers such matters.
It is. That’s why it’s never been a problem.
Only by morons.
Some pretty credible people disagree with you.
Yep, those millions and millions of morons who vote.
No they don’t. They know they’re full of shit.
The bill just passed in the House. Democratic members are chanting “yes we can”!
Like, uh…Doooom…and stuff. Or maybe not. Guess we’ll see soon enough.