Not sure if anyone here can answer this question.. BUT

[samrock]

Under the senate rules that allows using reconciliation.. even IF 50 senators want to add in a public option, would that be allowed?? I was made to understand reconciliation can only be used to modify a bill as far as budgeting is concerned.. adding a public option seems a lot more than that...

[FBaggins]

1. I'm not sure that ANYONE can answer that question.

In general, the answer is "no" - but games have been played with the rules before... so why not for something that really matters?

[DrDan]

3. but to lower Medicare age seems to me to be primarily a budget issue

is that not correct?

[FBaggins]

6. I don't know about "primarily", but

it's certainly enough of one to qualify. The problem is that this would without question increase the deficit.

A proposal doesn't just have to be budget related in order to qualify under recon guidelines... it has to be budget neutral or better.

[DrDan]

8. so the bill would need to specify higher rates for those less than 65

higher enough to offset any budget increase.

still sounds like a good way to offer an alternative . . . and I have a feeling folks would flock to it

[MiniMe]

2. Depends on what the parliamentarian says

And how much the republicks complain about it. OK, I almost got that out with a straight face. They would complain if it was a bill doing everything they want.

[HopeHoops]

4. As I understand it, the CBO consideres the Public Option to be a cost savings method. So yes.

If they can adjust the language to use the CBO report as justification for the Public Option as a way to offset costs ("budget"), then yes they can include it with reconciliation. That's pretty much the justification for the entire health care bill anyway.

[Romulox]

5. Senate rules can be changed on a majority vote. Anything else is ficition.

The Senate may not change the Constitution via its rule process.

[FBaggins]

7. No they can't

Or rather... they can only at the start of a new Congress.

Rule changes require a 2/3 vote otherwise.

[Romulox]

9. Nope. That's the thing. The Constitution may not be amended by a Senate Rule committee.

Senators may agree to the 2/3 rule, but there is no legal authority for the Senate to unilaterally modify the Constitution. So if a majority vote to change the 2/3 Rule, it is changed.

"...each Senator shall have one Vote." US Constitution, Article 1 sec. 3. :hi:

[FBaggins]

11. The constitution says that the senate can make its own rules

and one of the rules they've made is that cutting off debate for rule changes requires a 2/3 majority.

Nothing in this process "amends the Constitution"

You're closer to making the Republican's argument for the nuclear option on judges than you are to anything related to the current debate.

[Romulox]

12. They may not make Unconstitutional rules, however.

For example, the Senate could not afford the state of Hawaii only one vote spread amongst its two Senators, even on a vote of 98 other Senators. Once you acknowledge this principle, saying "the Senate may make its own rules" simply doesn't dispose of the situation.

"and one of the rules they've made is that cutting off debate for rule changes requires a 2/3 majority."

This rule may be amended on a simple majority vote. Its power is purely voluntary.

"Nothing in this process 'amends the Constitution'"

If it effectively affords "more than one vote" to any particular Senator, it indeed does.

"You're closer to making the Republican's argument for the nuclear option on judges than you are to anything related to the current debate."

And your flaccid ad hom is the equivalent of leading with your chin; no Constitutional scholar, you. :hi:

[FBaggins]

13. And nothing here is unconstitutional.

This rule may be amended on a simple majority vote. Its power is purely voluntary.


That's incorrect. Better put, the rule CAN be amended on a majority vote AFTER senators are done debating whether or not to HOLD that vote. And THAT process requires (by rule) a 2/3 majority.

If it effectively affords "more than one vote" to any particular Senator, it indeed does.

And that's not happening.

The Constitution dictates how many votes are required for certain actions...and leaves open to the Senate to determine the PROCESS they use to get TO a vote. There is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate EVER HOLD a vote on healthcare reform.

no Constitutional scholar, you

Says the guy who is essentially claiming that all filibusters are unconstitutional? Pardon me if that doesn't cause me much concern.

[Romulox]

14. Read my posts again, more carefully. I said the Senate Rule was *voluntary*

attempting to enforce a 2/3s rule after a simple majority voted to abrogate it would be Unconstitutional. This is not a fine distinction. :hi:

"Says the guy who is essentially claiming that all filibusters are unconstitutional?"

Read what I've posted aloud if it helps. At no time did I make this claim. :shrug:

[FBaggins]

15. And "saying" that doesn't make it so.

There's nothing in the rules that make them "voluntary".

attempting to enforce a 2/3s rule after a simple majority voted to abrogate it would be Unconstitutional.

That's true. But enforcing a 2/3 rule to end debate and hold the vote is NOT unconstitutional. The Senate can't change how many votes it takes to pass something... but they CAN determine whether to hold the vote at all.



At no time did I make this claim.

It's the same rule. If one is unconstitutional than the other is.

[Romulox]

16. You don't seem to even understand the question. This isn't very productive.

"It's the same rule. If one is unconstitutional than the other is."

In Constitutional law, it is not possible to give a definitive answer on any question that has not been previously decided on by the SCOTUS. So my position (and yours) both amount to "just saying" what the Constitution requires.

The difference here is that you don't seem to understand the issue: the filibuster is not Unconstitutional, per say. It is a rule that has force so long as the majority agrees to honor it.

Asserting that past Senates, through their Rules, may change the one Senator = one vote principle in the face of a majority vote to the contrary by the presently seated Senate would be. The distinction you attempt to draw between cloture and the actual substantive vote simply is not born out in reality. Nor by the US Constitution.

Do you understand the difference? Because your post, above, betrays no hint that you do. :hi:

[FBaggins]

17. I understand quite well... I'm just telling you that you're incorrect.

In Constitutional law, it is not possible to give a definitive answer on any question that has not been previously decided on by the SCOTUS.

Oh bull. "we don't know until the court speaks" is a ridiculous position. All three branches of government have an obligation (and ability) to determine whether their actions are constitutional. The presumption is that they ARE unless overridden. You have no option of ignoring a passed/signed law by claiming that the court's have yet to rule on it.

The difference here is that you don't seem to understand the issue: the filibuster is not Unconstitutional, per say. It is a rule that has force so long as the majority agrees to honor it.

Lol! I'm the one that doesn't understand?

So you're saying that the Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules... but that such rules are entirely voluntary? Give me a break.


Asserting that past Senates, through their Rules, may change the one Senator = one vote principle

That's your straw man. Nobody has said that (since the filibuster does NOT change the one senator = one vote principle.

The distinction you attempt to draw between cloture and the actual substantive vote simply is not born out in reality

That's flat wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires them to hold a vote on proposed legislation. They are therefore entitled to come up with whatever rules they want to determine how and when (or even IF) they will vote on a given proposal.

Do you understand the difference?

I understand EXACTLY the distinction that you're trying to make. I ALSO understand that you're wrong.

[Romulox]

19. This is why discussing these matters from those who have not studied in this field is fruitless.

"Oh bull. "we don't know until the court speaks" is a ridiculous position."

It's the position of anyone who's taken a cursory glance at the subject. There's a reason that every Con law book starts with Marbury v. Madison. To whit, the following language from Justice Marshall's opinion: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

"So you're saying that the Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules... but that such rules are entirely voluntary? Give me a break."

Please read my first post again. I said these rules may simply be changed on a majority vote.

"They are therefore entitled to come up with whatever rules they want to determine how and when (or even IF) they will vote on a given proposal."

No, this is demonstrably false. A rule that prevented one state's senators from voting along with the rest of the Senate would clearly be Unconstitutional.

[FBaggins]

20. I've studied "this field" for decades... thanks

Your position is the novel one.

To whit, the following language from Justice Marshall's opinion: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

And let me guess... you can't tell the difference between "emphatically" and "exclusively" in that sentence, can you?

Please read my first post again. I said these rules may simply be changed on a majority vote.

Re-read it twice now... it's still wrong. The Constitution provides no guidance for how to make/change those rules (it certainly never hints that they might be "optional")... it leaves it up to the House and Senate. To put "option" and "rule" in the same sentence is ridiculous.

No, this is demonstrably false.

So go ahead and demonstrate it.

A rule that prevented one state's senators from voting along with the rest of the Senate would clearly be Unconstitutional.

Lol... which means that any OTHER rule is similarly unenforceable? Nonsense. Such a rule would be unconstitutional BECAUSE it directly contradicts a Constitutional requirement. The filibuster would ALSO be unconstitutional IF the Constitution required ANY vote on a given item. Since it does NOT do so, the Senate is free to set up whatever structure they like for consideration of an action. This is why your argument sounds closest to the Republican "nuclear" claim. At least they could plausibly argue that the Senate is constitutionally bound to act on judicial nominations. They are under no similar obligation to act here.


The VAST majority of legislation is killed in committee without any floor vote. There is no Constitutional design that permits this EXCEPT for the fact that it clearly says that the senate can determine it's own rules. There are plenty of other super-majority rules in both houses... which ones have ever been ruled unconstitutional (OR "optional")?

[Romulox]

21. Nope. Your "the fillibuster would be Unconstitutional" line betrays your lack of comprehension.

I've put some effort into this, but there is only so much "horse sense" type Constitutional discussion one can take.

[FBaggins]

22. You've "put some effort" into a smokescreen

trying to split hairs over whether something is "unconstitutional" or "optional"

You're saying that the rule is unenforcable against a majority vote because the Constitution says so. It's a distinction without a difference... and the Constitution explicitly says the opposite.

The fact is that Rule XXII exists and no court in the land would (or could) consider it... let alone overturn it (or "rule it optional")

[Winterblues]

10. Are you under the impression that Health Care costs are not in the Budget?

The entire purpose of the Public Option is to lower costs....

[ChicagoSuz219]

18. It's my understanding that...

...it's already in the passed House bill

...if they knew for sure it would get 50 votes, they could put it in the merged bill.

Right now, I'm more freaked out about Stupak than this.

I just wish people would stop drawing lines in the sand & get the damn thing passed already!!