The irony of “reconciliation”

posted at 9:30 am on August 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The New York Times offers a strong hint that Democrats in the Senate will use the budget reconciliation process as a cover to move ObamaCare through the chamber to avoid a filibuster.  The Democrats will “go it alone,” the headline reads, although the actual report makes the how of that rather ambiguous.  And well it should, since the Democrats know — or should know — that to try reconciliation would be an invitation to a war that would bring Congress to a screeching halt:

Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. …

The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.

In fact, the article never mentions the word “reconciliation,” the process by which the Senate approves a budget for the federal government.  Under the rules of reconciliation, no cloture vote is needed, as the chamber has a Constitutional duty to produce a budget.  Some Democrats have threatened this for months, notably Chuck Schumer, but the plan has a couple of big flaws.  First, the Democrats have to convince the Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly non-partisan, to agree that the bill is primarily budgetary.  No one in their right mind could honestly make that judgment about massive regulation of 15% of the American economy.  They’re likely to get denied before they even get started.

However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next  year.  Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent.  Bill-reading is just one example.  One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee.  For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.

Traditionally, Senators give each other the courtesy of unanimous consent to allow business to proceed at a normal pace.  If the Democrats try to force ObamaCare through reconciliation, that unanimous consent will dissipate faster than an Obama expiration date.  It won’t take the entire Republican caucus to gum up the works, either; it only takes a single objection to end unanimous consent, and the GOP has more than a couple of conservative firebrands who will gladly toss sand in the gears to stop Harry Reid from steamrolling them.

Democrats might think that this will gain them sympathy with the public, but not if they’re breaking rules to pass an increasingly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation.  It will create a firestorm of anger even worse than what we’ve seen in the townhalls thus far.  They would be signing their way to minority status, especially in the House.  They can kiss the rest of their agenda goodbye for the rest of this session, too, including cap-and-trade.  Even budgeting will prove very difficult.

There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation.  It’s a bluff.  Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Nazi Harry Reid IS that foolish

hamradio on August 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM

CI, sorry but you are incorrect. The whole ‘seperation of church and state’ was to protect the church from the state, thus keeping the state from enforing a single relegion on all people. By requiring our tax dollars to allow for abortions, they are creating a conflict in that standing. They are basically establishing laws that prevent the free exercise there off, because as a christian, I can not support those who get abortions, thus I must make a choice between supporting my relegion and supporting the state.

As for the other, you are again wrong. You should really read the federalist papers, it is actually discussed there. The first part of the 4th section is what is being discussed in particular in this case. In order to guarentee that the states have available to them a republican form of government, the federal government MUST remain a republican form of government.

From Federalist Paper #43.

To the second question it may be answered, that if the general government should interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority, it will be, of course, bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no further than to a GUARANTY of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.

As you can see, the founding fathers intentions (according to Madison) with this statement was to require the federal government (as long as any one state maintained so) a republican form of government.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM

But CI, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Show to me the clause and provision that allows the US Government to take over 1/6th of the economy by nationalizing our health care system.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM

CI I dispute there is any such thing as “unnecessary testing”. If the doctor wants more information, that’s necessary. If the govt can tell the doctor to guess that’s building a Death Panel.

Chris_Balsz on August 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM

The commerce clause, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court for the last 70 years, allows Congress to pass laws if there could be an impact on commerce betwwen the states in some significant way.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM

They are basically establishing laws that prevent the free exercise there off, because as a christian, I can not support those who get abortions, thus I must make a choice between supporting my relegion and supporting the state.

To clarify this further. I am not saying that the federal government can not declare abortion as not being murder, that is within their authority to do, even if I disagree. It is when they put me in the position to PAY for it or require my participation that they are crossing the line of the church protection clause.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM

The whole ’seperation of church and state’ was to protect the church from the state, thus keeping the state from enforing a single relegion on all people. By requiring our tax dollars to allow for abortions, they are creating a conflict in that standing. They are basically establishing laws that prevent the free exercise there off, because as a christian, I can not support those who get abortions, thus I must make a choice between supporting my relegion and supporting the state.

I’m curious as to your stance on conscientious objetion during time of war then, based on that interpretation.

CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM

time to ram the bill through, this must pass

liberal4eva on August 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM

The commerce clause, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court for the last 70 years, allows Congress to pass laws if there could be an impact on commerce betwwen the states in some significant way.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Good, good. I knew that one would come up. It is misinterperted by our court system. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to regulate business, it gives the federal government the authority to regulate the states in regards to their interstate trade. Here is the exact clause for those who may or may not know it outside the badly misterperted statement.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations (ie, the ability to forbid the trade with countries, ie Cuba) or to create trade treaties (such as NAFTA). The reason this is held at the federal level is to keep states from negotiating with foriegn powers at the expense of their state brothers.

To regulate the commerce among the several states. Here is the exerpt that is relevate from Federalist Papers #42, written by Madison.

The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.

The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.

As one can clearly see, the founding fathers had no intention on this ability being used to control business, but rather as a protection for the states that had no natural borders for which they could of been extorted into unfavorable trade deals or paid undue taxes simply due to their local.

Nice try, but it isn’t a justification for the government taking over 1/6th of the economy.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM

The whole ’seperation of church and state’ was to protect the church from the state, thus keeping the state from enforing a single relegion on all people. By requiring our tax dollars to allow for abortions, they are creating a conflict in that standing. They are basically establishing laws that prevent the free exercise there off, because as a christian, I can not support those who get abortions, thus I must make a choice between supporting my relegion and supporting the state.
I’m curious as to your stance on conscientious objetion during time of war then, based on that interpretation.

I have no issue with it. I feel that a person who does not feel they can function in that regard should have no place on the battle field and by forcing them there make them a larger liability than an asset.

Also, contrary to many conservatives, I’m also against the death penality (in case you are curious).

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

I will note that the above is clarified that as long as they are not aiding and abeiting the enemy (thus guilty of treason)

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM

CrankyIndependent – Instead of wasting time manufacturing insurance company statistics (e.g. 30-40% profit margins) take some time off (we’ll welcome your absence) go to your local library and find the AM Best Reports – which gives annual audited financial results for every insurance company in the world.

Look under A&H companies (Accident & Health) and please report back if these companies are showing 30/40% profits.

alwyr on August 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM

TKSnider, I appreciate your postion, but you’ll have to convince the current Supreme Court to overturn 70 years of cases or get a US Constitution amendment to be able to implement your position on the commerce clause in the US. Most of the current Supreme Court voted in favor of a decision in the mid 90s that, in dicta, upheld the position I described. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez.

You’ll also need to overturn more years of Supreme Court history or get a US Constitution amendment to be able to implement your position on religion. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the states weren’t required to fund abortion and indicated that the Establishment/Free Excercise clauses didn’t require states to fund abortion. That would seem to indicate, although it may not have been argued, that the Supreme Court didn’t think those clauses prohibited states from funding abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._McRae.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Also, contrary to many conservatives, I’m also against the death penality (in case you are curious).

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

I respect consistency. What I really want to do then, is engage you on the notion of abortion as sin. Here’s how I’ve always understood the issue. Christians continually point to scripture that indicates God knows us before we were born. God’s recognition of our lives prior to delivery is then used as justification for abortion being “murder.” I can’t tell if you’re catholic or not (you’re anti-death penalty stance indicates maybe yes) but this is also the argument used against contraceptives no? That because God knows us before we are born, therefore any attempts to prevent that life from being conceives is an act or murder.

But there’s some serious problems with this line of thinking. For one thing, the notion that God “knows” us prior to our birth is one that, dare I say it, is pretty obvious if you believe in an omni-present and omniscient Creator. If the argument is that preventing life from being born or conceived is an act of “murder” then does the same count if someone steps into an existing relationship and sweeps someone off their feet and away from their existing partner? Let’s assume the pre-existing relationship was headed towards marriage but they weren’t married yet. Is that act of romancing an act of “murder” because it prevents the potential child the original couple would have concieved from giving birth?

Ultimately, my admittedly sill hypothetical is the end result of a logic that says preventing potential life is the same as murdering life post birth.

Why wasn’t God more explicit? Why not follow up the “I know you before you were born” scripture with “and any who prevent your birth are no better than murderers in my mind” or something along those lines? We know that abortion was a common practice throughout all societies long before Roe v. Wade, including Ancient Judea. The herbs/plants that can induce miscarriage have long been a part of what scholars call female knowledge about the reproductive process. Through Paul and other disciples God enumerated the actions he considered sinful, worthy of hell. Why not this very common practice?

CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 4:06 PM

TKSnider, I appreciate your postion, but you’ll have to convince the current Supreme Court to overturn 70 years of cases or get a US Constitution amendment to be able to implement your position on the commerce clause in the US. Most of the current Supreme Court voted in favor of a decision in the mid 90s that, in dicta, upheld the position I described. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez.

You’ll also need to overturn more years of Supreme Court history or get a US Constitution amendment to be able to implement your position on religion. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the states weren’t required to fund abortion and indicated that the Establishment/Free Excercise clauses didn’t require states to fund abortion. That would seem to indicate, although it may not have been argued, that the Supreme Court didn’t think those clauses prohibited states from funding abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._McRae.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Why would I need a constitutional amendment for something already in the consitution. While I agree that the Supreme court is misinterpeting it, congress and more importantly the states, have let them get away with it.

this is not the first, nor do I expect it to be the last time that the supreme court fails to uphold the constitution.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM

CI, while that kind of debate would be interesting, it is not germaine to this locale. And no, I’m not Catholic.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.

Uhm, Ed? This is HARRY REID we are talking about here.

He’ll do anything to defeat those ‘evil mongers’.

manofaiki on August 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.

I must respectfully, disagree. I could add a couple of his own quotations to illustrate, but I will allow you all to choose your own. What are filthy Harry’s most famous words? Words that will live in infamy?

dogsoldier on August 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed

The NYT of course, refuses to mention all the GOP proposals which the Dems/White House has opposed such as tort reform and a plan to offer small business,states, and other organizations to band together to lower costs of insurance.

Democrats are going it alone and will be responsible for the $Trillions added to the deficit, higher taxes, long wait lines, shortage of doctors…

TN Mom on August 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Nice try, but it isn’t a justification for the government taking over 1/6th of the economy.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009

No justification is necessary. Just the force of Obama’s will. A modern Mussolini (he even does the chin-jutting thing pretty well), his goal is to tear down the tired old system and his watchword is action, not reason.

SKYFOX on August 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM

No justification is necessary. Just the force of Obama’s will. A modern Mussolini (he even does the chin-jutting thing pretty well), his goal is to tear down the tired old system and his watchword is action, not reason.

SKYFOX on August 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop him though.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Good post. But, can you try to reduce it to something “chantible”, i.e; “yes we can”, or short enough to put on a bumper sticker? Haiku would work also.

Really, the liberal mind is unable to focus on lengthy dialogue. They prefer catchy slogans and songs.

BobMbx on August 19, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Good post. But, can you try to reduce it to something “chantible”, i.e; “yes we can”, or short enough to put on a bumper sticker? Haiku would work also.

Really, the liberal mind is unable to focus on lengthy dialogue. They prefer catchy slogans and songs.

BobMbx on August 19, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Best I can do is.

Socialism is unconstitional.

But then, I’ve never been very good at that kind of thing :)

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM

I would like the Republicans to hire Ben Stein to read the bills aloud in his signature droll nasal voice.

Disturb the Universe on August 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Get Sessions to introduce the bill that will do just that!! Priceless.

jimmy2shoes on August 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM

And Harry Reid has the votes in the Senate to rewrite any Senate Rule he so desires. As such, this whole article is a non-starter.

Mahdi on August 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Why would I need a constitutional amendment for something already in the consitution. While I agree that the Supreme court is misinterpeting it, congress and more importantly the states, have let them get away with it.

this is not the first, nor do I expect it to be the last time that the supreme court fails to uphold the constitution.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Good lord. Our friend Jimbo is completely misreading the import of the Lopez decision regarding the commerce clause. The SCOTUS has been constraining the New Deal era use of the Commerce Clause for over a decade now. Starting in 1995 with U.S. v. Lopez and continuing in U.S v. Morrison (2000) court precedent has placed ever stricter limits on its use because the clause began blurring the lines between the states and the feds which is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

This is not to say that they won’t try to use the commerce clause but it will go straight up to the court if they do.

The court in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) made an exception to the general drive to constrain the clause and allowed the government to enforce a drug law but it reiterated the Lopez precedent.

If I were them I’d try cramming this takeover using the Spending power and not the commerce clause because this court will take it to the woodshed on 10th Amendment grounds.

elduende on August 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM

How can something that is 1/6th of our GNP not significantly affect interstate commerce, elduende?

Yes, the US Supreme Court has moved in the direction of more state protection, but remember the Lopez decision said that that Congress could regulate three areas under the Commerce Clause: (i) the channels of interstate commerce; (ii) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and (iii)
activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce.

Here, not only will the healthcare activies be covered under (iii), they’ll also be covered under (ii) because ObamaCare will have a federal insurance aspect and because health care, unlike the carrying of guns, is clearly an economic activity.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Hey Cranky, you have stated we spend more on health then any other industrial nation. We also spend more then those same nations on education, welfare, and prison spending. Since the government operates all of these systems, do you agree they need revamped and have more gov’t control? We also spend more on most nations on health care for foreigners and illegals and how would you suggest we cut those costs? My answer would be let Mexico handle the costs of the illegals and tell Mexico we can’t afford long term health care for their citizens. Like to see your answers on these questions.

garydt on August 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Look I’m not going to debate you because it is a waste of time. The Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to seize healthcare.

Maybe you are an attorney but I doubt it, you were wrong on your earlier post and I’ve caught you out there either misreading the case or lying about it.

I appreciate your postion, but you’ll have to convince the current Supreme Court to overturn 70 years of cases or get a US Constitution amendment to be able to implement your position on the commerce clause in the US. Most of the current Supreme Court voted in favor of a decision in the mid 90s that, in dicta, upheld the position I described.

Now I’ve corrected you in that the commerce clause has been constrained from its expansive interpretations of the past.

The court addressed your point, they said that everything can be considered to affect commerce. That is exactly why they wanted to constrain the use of the commerce clause because it was being used to justify all sorts of blatant power grabs by the federal government. The court said enough and slapped them down.

In this case the court will see socializing healthcare as a disruptive unpopular power grab more than it is an economic activity and they will strike it down.

I encourage you to keep thinking that they can use the commerce clause to force this on us but please stop misleading people.

elduende on August 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM

I am an attorney. The Lopez decision said that the regulation of handguns in a situation where they weren’t shown to significantly affected interstate commerce or trafficked in interstate commerce was beyond the scope of the commerce clause because this was not an economic activity. But the court there laid out the three tests I described above.

Healthcare clearly significantly affects interstate commerce, is an economic activy and will be provided at the federal level (under the current plan) and across state lines.

Are you an attorney? I’ll take bets right now about what the Supreme Court will do in this situation.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM

“Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.” Ed Morrissey

Why did Hitler invade the Soviet Union and invoke a two-front war. Nobody could be that foolish, could they?

Why do estranged husbands hunt down their wives and kill them and then commit suicide. Nobody could be that foolish, could they?

Why do people keep their life savings under a mattress only to see it go up in flames because they smoked in bed. Nobody could be that foolish, could they?

Why did Mark Sanford go to Argentina to visit his honey, go incommunicado, and not think he would be found out? Nobody could be that foolish, could they?

Why did the South fire on Fort Sumter and risk starting the Civil War? Nobody could be that foolish, could they?

technopeasant on August 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Scott Horton interviews Tom Woods

Spathi on August 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Harry Reid is stupid enough to try this. After all, as far as he is concerned the people who do not want this bill are evil mongers.

Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if Reid lost his next election?

Terrye on August 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Are you an attorney? I’ll take bets right now about what the Supreme Court will do in this situation.

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM

I am an attorney. I read the case again yesterday, and have it in front of me now. I’ll take your bet. This court which has essentially the same ideological makeup of the one that decided Lopez will slap this down on the 10th amendment grounds because it infringes on a traditional area of state sovereignty, namely the state regulation of healthcare and insurance. That’s not to mention a host of other constitutional problems.

I also hear none of the bills even have the authority they are using in them.

So they will probably avoid the headaches with the commerce clause and try for the spending power.

elduende on August 19, 2009 at 6:27 PM

There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.
.
.
Never underestimate the foolishness of Harry Reid.

Carl on August 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Problem:

Wouldn’t the “withhold unanimous consent” weapon would be in retaliation for using the reconciliation process to get Obamacare through?

Once it got through, the media, et al. would eventually grind Republicans down …. “what’s the point, now that it’s passed?”

Republicans need more than a “we’ll make your life hell after you do this” weapon … where’s the weapon / strategy that keeps this from going forward in the first place?

BD57 on August 19, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Never underestimate the foolishness of Dingy Harry.

ZK on August 19, 2009 at 7:02 PM

time to ram the bill through, this must pass

liberal343 on August 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM

FIFY

Your act as a simpleton rates a 10

Congrats!!

CWforFreedom on August 19, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Ok, how many fake internet dollars are you willing to bet me on what the Supreme Court’s decision will be in this case. I’ll take $100 and it will uphold Obamacare.

Your bet?

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 7:33 PM

can you try to reduce it to something “chantible”, i.e; “yes we can”, or short enough to put on a bumper sticker?

We’ve had a lot of response with NO MORE! Not specific to healthcare, but it covers a lot of ground and is very shout-able. Prints on a T-shirt well, too.

indypat on August 19, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Anybody heard of the “Byrd Bath”?

http://tracesword.blogspot.com/2009/08/reconciliation-perilous-road-to-health.html

patch on August 19, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Look, even if the commerce clause is used here, it can’t be used to justify the taking over of 1/6th of the economy, at most it can be used to regulate it, not replace it.

The point is, by trying to socialize this, they are stepping on so many constutional clauses it isn’t even funny. Nevermind the fact that they don’t even have the authority to create a healthcare insurance organization anyways (even under the commerce or spending clauses), they have the authority to regulate if you take the complete misinterpertation of the Supreme Court into account (which I think shouldn’t be, but understand the logistics of who skewed that has become).

In short, this is an unconstitutional bill and needs to be scrapped, period. This administration is already tap dancing around the unlawful seizure with some of their earlier take over activities (with the cars).

There are so many better ways to fix this that doesn’t destory our economy and give the government this level of power, those are the options we should be looking at and those options could be done constitutionally.

TKSnider on August 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Your bet?

Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 7:33 PM

Alright we’ll see. We’re getting way ahead of ourselves. If by some miracle they even get this to a vote and passed, then I’ll see your 100 on SCOTUS but I’ll raise you 100 on whether they even use the commerce clause as their authority for the final bill.

elduende on August 19, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Don’t the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate now?

If so they why this talk of the Republicans being the problem when if everyone in their party voted for it they can pass anything they want now?

Also the House bill passed without any Republican input or support, so they are already going it alone and I don’t know were this take of bi-partisanship except in the Senate is coming from.

JeffinSac on August 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I can’t imagine the Republicans taking the tack suggested here. Talk about truly being obstructionists.

AnninCA on August 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Politico is reporting that the Dems are going to attempt the “Weekend at Bernie’s” option too…

check it out

ted c on August 19, 2009 at 9:32 PM

A modern Mussolini (he even does the chin-jutting thing pretty well)
SKYFOX on August 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM

OMG…That’s where it came from…It seamed familiar …But I didn’t think too much on it, even with the frequent and obvious parallels of belief and policy…
…Thanks

jerrytbg on August 19, 2009 at 9:57 PM

I’m viewing the “0” as an amalgamation of all beliefs that are evil…

jerrytbg on August 19, 2009 at 10:01 PM

This might end with the senate blowing up and nothing happening for a whole year?

Dude, if this doesn’t happen now it will be like waking up Christmas morning at age 5 and finding the tree gone and coal in my stocking.

Not cool…

Great, now my hopes are way up.

jhffmn on August 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM

I think Teddy would make a much better spokesman for the ‘Death Panel’ issue.

….wouldn’t we all be better off just pulling the ol’ plug on Teddy? It would be hard to argue with the left on that one.

Mr Purple on August 20, 2009 at 2:49 AM

However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next year.

How do I vote for this outcome? Anyone who proposes this gets my vote, and a nice cash donation to their election campaign…

Wait, we can do this. How much does a Senator bribe cost nowadays? Weren’t the “Friends of Angelo” deals only six figures? Heck, nobody would notice that in a budget the size we’re spending now. Can we vote to use taxpayer funds to bribe a Senator to do this? Or would that be “unethical” all of a sudden?

gekkobear on August 20, 2009 at 3:00 AM

I can’t imagine the Republicans taking the tack suggested here. Talk about truly being obstructionists.

AnninCA

I agree. How dare those evil Republicans try to block the takeover of 1/6 of the economy, and the destruction of the best health care in the world.

xblade on August 20, 2009 at 4:43 AM

More threats of going it alone with reconciliation This involves a two part strategy?

msmveritas on August 20, 2009 at 6:29 AM

If the Dems try this they should just say bye-bye to their careers.

becki51758 on August 20, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Nevada… PLEASE do something about your Senator… He has done enough damage to my country… Thanks!

Khun Joe on August 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

The new Axis of Evil; Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid.
The current U.S. Government is exactly like any union I ever belonged to; 1. Take your money, 2. make airy promises, 3. do whatever they want, with money and legislation, to advance the union at the expense of its members.
“We the People” now is “We the Governed”.
Welcome to the New Totalitarianism.
Are we a “More Perfect Union” yet?

Cybergeezer on August 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM

“Ronald Reagan used to joke that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/20/in_government_we_trust_97968.html

Goodeye_Closed on August 20, 2009 at 9:56 AM

C-SPAN broadcast Democrat Congressman Gene Taylor’s Moss Point Mississippi Town Hall Meeting.

VERY IMPRESSIVE BLUE DOG!

maverick muse on August 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Are we a “More Perfect Union” yet?
Cybergeezer on August 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM

heh

maverick muse on August 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM

The Moss Point MS Democrats attending their Town Hall respectfully charged Rep. Taylor to tell Congress and the President that Americans are not a stupid bunch of fools for Washington to abuse, and for our leaders to retract their ugliness towards citizens.

I was impressed.

maverick muse on August 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM

The proof is in the pudding. Southern good manners trump Washington elitism hands down.

maverick muse on August 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM

You’re on, elduende. But what happens if Obama argues several grounds for constitutionality, but the courts only decide its constitutional on one and don’t reach the others because they’re moot?

Jimbo3 on August 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM

These democrats are really really going to roll the dice and expect to remain a majority party. When the republicans get back I hope they initiate recriminations, witch hunts and show trials.

kens on August 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Jimbo3 on August 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM

He may as well copy and paste the entire enumerated powers into the bill and hope to make one stick. None will.

If one miraculously does then we’ll invalidate it in at least 37 states with Interposition and/or Nullification. Its high time the states pushed back on the Federal government.

We’ll take this to the bitter end. Lets see if Obama wants to risk using the federal police power to impose his takeover on us.

elduende on August 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM

If these communist persist in passing these monstrous bankrupting programs they are writing the campaign of all their opponents in the next election. Winning candidates simply run on repealing everything the Muslim, Kenyan, Communist-led party enacts!!Campaign on tax cuts and job creating measures instead of Rev. Wright’s concepts of reparations and redistribution of the evil white man’s wealth!America is languishing in a man-made Depression while these fools try to steal what little Americans have left! It is about he economy STUPID DEMOS!!

Marco on August 20, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5