What are you saying, BG? That the constitution doesn’t supply every senatorial minority with a veto power nearly as strong as that of the president himself?
That’s Crazy talk!
Is Magellan01 ever going to return to this thread and address this point? Because it would be absolutely ridiculous if s/he didn’t.
Gotta admit it would be more restful, though.
ETA: Pretty sure he’s a guy, btw.
Hey, there’s no need to choose! 
The point is simply that NOT ALL votes have the same threshold. I’m glad you admit that now.
.
Nope. Elvis just cited two examples. I repeat, the point was simply that NOT ALL votes have the same threshold. The more profound the subject, the greater the threshold.
:dubious: Waitaminnit, now. The Framers set out a limited set of issues requiring a supermajority. That does not in any way imply, “The more profound the subject, the greater the threshold.” To the contrary, all matters not so enumerated are, by implication, left to a bare-majority-of-members-present (not even a majority of the whole house, so long as a quorum is present). The only loophole there is that the Framers left it to each house to write its own rules, both houses initially allowed “unlimited debate,” and while the House soon scrapped that the Senate never has. (But it should, as I argue in this thread.)
In regard to ordinary legislation, such as health care, yes, they do. As you would know if you yourself had “looked it up”. :rolleyes:
I’m glad you admit that your “point” has jack shit to do with the subject at hand, and that you really do believe everything Hannity tells you.
Wow, just can’t admit you are wrong. The Constitution does not require that bills like UHC have a super majority. The Constitution specifically lists a few things that require a two thirds majority for the Senate and the House. Are you now going to argue that the House requires a two thirds majority to pass bills as well?
Bigger men than you have admitted they are wrong.
And that’s great. But what happens now is the interesting part. The House needs to vote on the bill that passed the Senate AS IS. So, there can be no policy changes between what the bill says now and the bill that might be signed into law. But the House looks like it won’t pass it as is. For instance, Rep. Stupak has said that he and other pro-life Dems will NOT vote in favor of the Senate bill, as it does not have the Stupak amendment, or similar language.
:rolleyes: You might be right if I watched him. But, shockingly, you’re not right. Again, the point was made to simply point out that both the Constitution and rules of the Senate accept that there should be, and are, different thresholds for different issues. The question is should the reconciliation process be used to shoehorn in non budgetary issues. I think it fine that reconciliation be used on the bill that has been passed to…now wait for this…RECONCILE THE BUDGET. If there is an attempt to change the substance of the bill through this process, that should be shut down. Period.
In your opinion. Which is based on ignorance.
Kay.
magellan01 must have been at the gym working out. See how easily he moved those goalposts?
Good try, but FAIL.
I never said it did. And that’s because it doesn’t. I know this might be a lot to ask, but try to grasp the point that I did make, not one I did not. Thanks.
Oh, I’ve admitted I’ve been wrong on these boards before. Sometimes embarrassingly so. How about you. You’ve attempted to put words and thoughts into my mouth even after I’ve explained why your notion was wrong. I look forward your apology.
Then, assuming you did know the facts at the time (without actually “looking it up”), why did you bring it up as if it were significant or even relevant? :dubious:
If the changes go to reducing the deficit without adding to or changing policy that is in the bill, then fine. If it does change the conceptual meat of the bill, then it is not being used for its intended limited purpose and should not be allowed. Your use of “primarily” is the sticky wicket, isn’t it?
Holy crap! There is nothing about reconciliation vs non-reconciliation in the Constitution. It is a rule instituted by the Senate and one they can change when they want. Nothing, nada, zero, zip in the Constitution requires a super majority to pass a bill like UHC.
The word “primarily” is defined by the Byrd Rule, which limits what can and cannot be done in reconciliation. If the Byrd Rule allows changes to the health care bill which will presumably be passed by the House soon, and Senator Byrd says that this would fit into his view of what would be acceptable under the Byrd rule, you are left with no legs to stand on nor a pot to pee in.
Just reviewing your earlier posts more, you seem to not understand that reconciliation is about making changes in law to mandatory programs in order to produce a budget effect. It isn’t simply about changing numbers with no effect on law.
Because it goes to the spirit of the process. The founders, and most people today, accept that more substantive changes to the country should require more than a 51-vote majority. This is a HUGE change to the country. Healthcare accounts for a sixth of our economy; people will be mandated—forced—to buy a product (HC)—that’s not small potatoes. It’s a massive shift to the country. Let’s even say it’s a noble and good one, where the positives outweigh all the negatives…it’s still a massive change that shouldn’t be squeeked in through some iffy procedural maneuver. If the country is going to, in essence, treat healthcare as a right, let congress amend the Constitution to reflect that (as LBJ did), then align policy with the Constitution.
Now if this was so clearly the cat’s meow, more people would be on board with it and there be a surplus of votes. But that’s not where we are.
Then we agree. Good.