Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Deemed Passes" Dead - Clear Vote Sunday  
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Posted (4 years 6 months 5 days ago) and read 1729 times:

Quote:
House leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate health-care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to "deem" the unpopular measure passed without an explicit vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR2010032001651.html?hpid=topnews

3 Votes Sunday:

Vote 1: Terms of Debate.

Vote 2: House bill amending Senate Bill

Vote 3: The Senate Bill

That is going to make a lot of people against health care reform (or the current bill) very happy, but it has also highlighted the long standing practice, potentially making it far less available in the future to Republicans as well as Democrats.

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
Vote 1: Terms of Debate.

Vote 2: House bill amending Senate Bill

Vote 3: The Senate Bill

Unless I missed something, this still means that after the bill passes The House (assumption) and The President signs it, The Senate still needs to approve the changes made to the bill. So, The House members are still taking it on faith that The Senate will comply?

Vote 2 means nothing unless The Senate also approves the changes.

Why didn't they just go to conference and settle the differences? Oh yeah, because they don't have the votes in The Senate to close debate. So, we try more parlimentary tricks.

Well, I guess in the eyes of the Triumvirate, the ends do justify the means.

I hope The Senate shafts The House.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

If the House votes "Yea" on both the reconciliation bill and the Senate Bill Obama will be there to sign the Senate bill into law.

The Senate will then take up the House Reconciliation Bill and over 50 of the Senate Democrats have signed a letter of commitment to the House Bill and that letter has been delivered to the House Democrats.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):
So, we try more parlimentary tricks.

Reconciliation has been used frequently by both parties. Like the "Deemed" votes. Part of the process that both parties have used to their benefits. It's a process, far more established than a "trick". I doubt if the Republicans want the reconciliation process branded like the deemed process has been.


User currently offlineyanqui67 From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Let the lawsuits fly. I cant wait.

[Edited 2010-03-20 13:09:15]

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
Reconciliation has been used frequently by both parties. Like the "Deemed" votes. Part of the process that both parties have used to their benefits. It's a process, far more established than a "trick". I doubt if the Republicans want the reconciliation process branded like the deemed process has been.

But not for something this big. Let's not rehash the arguments here.

It will play out and we'll go from there.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
But not for something this big.

The Bush tax cuts was pretty big a deal. Didn't that use reconciliation?

It is a process that has been respected by both parties and, as I said, the Republicans have to walk carefully to ensure their words don't come back to bite them when they want to use it in the future.

From what I'm hearing now the Republicans are starting to focus on the mid-term elections now. If true there can be no doubt that they will want to save the legitimacy of reconciliation.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
The Bush tax cuts was pretty big a deal. Didn't that use reconciliation?

No, they (three different bills over three years) were passed by regular votes. No one in the Senate filibusted any of them.

Quoting yanqui67 (Reply 3):
Let the lawsuits fly. I cant wait.

Some 37 states are considering lawsuits against the bill, and once signed by President Obama, they can begin filing their suits in the federal courts. The first thing they will ask for is a "stay" to the new law, which they will most likely get.

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
3 Votes Sunday:

Vote 1: Terms of Debate.

Vote 2: House bill amending Senate Bill

Vote 3: The Senate Bill

I don't trust Pelosi. Setting the votes up in that order allows her to forgo the third vote and say it is "deemed passed" if she does not get either of the first two votes to go her way.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
The Bush tax cuts was pretty big a deal. Didn't that use reconciliation?

Hardly. The scope of this bill, in money and reach, is well beyond the Bush tax cuts.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 2):
If the House votes "Yea" on both the reconciliation bill and the Senate Bill Obama will be there to sign the Senate bill into law.

The Senate will then take up the House Reconciliation Bill and over 50 of the Senate Democrats have signed a letter of commitment to the House Bill and that letter has been delivered to the House Democrats

   If the bill passes in the House the rest is pretty much in the bag. The House vote is THE big deal.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Some 37 states are considering lawsuits against the bill, and once signed by President Obama, they can begin filing their suits in the federal courts. The first thing they will ask for is a "stay" to the new law, which they will most likely get.

  Not a chance...these state lawsuits are not much more than political posturing. The relationship of the Federal government to the States has been pretty thoroughly tested over the past couple centuries, and unless some new Constitutional argument can be brought before the Supreme Court, these state lawsuits are just a waste of taxpayer's money



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
I don't trust Pelosi. Setting the votes up in that order allows her to forgo the third vote and say it is "deemed passed" if she does not get either of the first two votes to go her way.

Not going to happen tomorrow. Vote 1 sets the rules for the votes. Vote 2 is the budget related changes. If that passes I think you can assume that vote 3 will also go with reform. I guess it would be possible for some House members to vote for reform on Vote 2 and then vote against the Senate bill. That might work for some members who are more concerned about re-election than health care. They can "look like a Democrat" on Vote 2 and save their bacon on Vote 3.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 8):
The relationship of the Federal government to the States has been pretty thoroughly tested over the past couple centuries, and unless some new Constitutional argument can be brought before the Supreme Court, these state lawsuits are just a waste of taxpayer's money

According to whom? There are certainly grey areas of the state/federal relationship of power. Look at the current debate of whether the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated to the states.

Regarding the health care bill, what article of Constitutional or precedent establishes the power of Congress to mandate an individual to purchase of a private service?


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
Regarding the health care bill, what article of Constitutional or precedent establishes the power of Congress to mandate an individual to purchase of a private service?

That is what is giong to generate the law suits and, in the end, the courts will decide.

If they rule for the House then you have established law, regardless of how you feel about it.

If they rule against the House then you're going to have a bit of chaos as I believe the ruling will be very sharply focused on that one issue, leaving in place other parts of the legislation. That will include additional taxes of one form or another for those who do not have health care.

It also opens the door wider for a public option.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
If they rule against the House then you're going to have a bit of chaos as I believe the ruling will be very sharply focused on that one issue, leaving in place other parts of the legislation. That will include additional taxes of one form or another for those who do not have health care.

Really? I thought if the SC declared a bill unconstitutional, the entire bill then becomes a dead issue. The entire process will have to start over again, this time with an already unpopular bill trying to be passed via high tax increases. Good luck with that.

I might be 100% wrong here, maybe the SC can deem "parts" of the bill unconstitutional. Maybe they can't.

However, that being said, since this could (is) be(ing) passed via reconciliation, which is budgetary, then stripping a mandated way of paying for the bill results in reconciliation being invalid, killing the entire bill. Remember, anything being passed via reconciliation *MUST BE DEFICIT NEUTRAL.* Taking the payment method away from the bill will instantly make it a bill that COSTS money. So, an entire new reconciliation bill will have to be passed VIA TAX INCREASES to ensure the deficit neutral rule is intact. Correct?

[Edited 2010-03-20 17:38:33]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
According to whom? There are certainly grey areas of the state/federal relationship of power. Look at the current debate of whether the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated to the states.

According to the aforementioned 223 years of litigation. I doubt there will be a time when all questions are answered, but the ability of the Federal government to pass laws that effect the States is not in doubt - hence my response that a "stay" might be granted is wishful thinking for some.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
Regarding the health care bill, what article of Constitutional or precedent establishes the power of Congress to mandate an individual to purchase of a private service?

That's a point that could be tested in court. It will not mean a "stay" would be issued on the entire health care reform.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 12):
Really? I thought if the SC declared a bill unconstitutional, the entire bill then becomes a dead issue. The entire process will have to start over again, this time with an already unpopular bill trying to be passed via high tax increases. Good luck with that.

The Supreme Court rules on points of law. Any lawsuit will have to raise a specific issue to be decided, and if the Supreme Court accepts the case and makes a decision adverse to the health care bill it would only require the Congress to remediate that specific issue. In order to toss out the entire bill, you'd need to show that the Congress cannot make laws governing health care AT ALL...and that is not going to happen.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 12):
I thought if the SC declared a bill unconstitutional, the entire bill then becomes a dead issue.

The SC would have to declare the entire bill unconstitutional, not just the insurance mandate. While some justices might enjoy doing that I doubt very seriously if they would even seriously entertain it.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 12):
I might be 100% wrong here, maybe the SC can deem "parts" of the bill unconstitutional. Maybe they can't.

The SC can make a decision on a specific point, with that specific point being deemed unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the House the authority to raise taxes and not even some of the radically right are crazy enough to touch that one.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 12):
So, an entire new reconciliation bill will have to be passed VIA TAX INCREASES to ensure the deficit neutral rule is intact. Correct?

No, the taxes are already in place. What would be available for action would be raising a public option - even if it is "processed" by private insurance companies. There is a lot can can be achieved through budget oriented, reconciliation qualified actions. If HCR passes Sunday those taking a legal route need to be aware of the potential of a public option if the mandate is taken down by the SC.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sunday Passes Without Lehman Bros. Bailout posted Sun Sep 14 2008 20:40:19 by Aaron747
Vote Early, Vote Often – Even If You’re Dead! posted Fri Jul 8 2005 17:52:00 by FlyingTexan
What Shall (...) You Vote In Sunday's Referendum? posted Tue May 24 2005 09:03:07 by UTA_flyinghigh
Ncaa Selection Sunday - Who Ya Got? posted Sun Mar 14 2010 13:43:50 by kstateinALB
Senate Passes $10 Billion Jobless Benefits posted Tue Mar 2 2010 22:30:50 by ProPilot83
To Buy Or Not To Buy Presenter Dead! (UK TV) posted Mon Mar 1 2010 15:35:16 by LHR380
Sunday 2/21/10 - Who's At Work Right Now! posted Sun Feb 21 2010 12:03:38 by varigb707
25 Feared Dead In Belgian Train Collision posted Mon Feb 15 2010 04:45:30 by Scorpio
"My Sharona" - Lead-singer Of The Knacks. Dead posted Sun Feb 14 2010 19:42:23 by varigb707
Charlie Wilson Dead posted Wed Feb 10 2010 12:27:01 by COrocks