TexasCHLforum.com

Can anybody answer a question about the congressional legislative process used to pass ObamaCare, which was reconciliation bypassing the 60 votes normally necessary to carry the Senate?

Since the mandate is ruled a tax how can a tax be passed via reconciliation as a budget issue. Tax bills have to originate in the House ( if I remember my civics) and must be passed by both Houses of Congress via normal rules. Am I stupid or just uninformed?

puma guy wrote:Can anybody answer a question about the congressional legislative process used to pass ObamaCare, which was reconciliation bypassing the 60 votes normally necessary to carry the Senate?

Since the mandate is ruled a tax how can a tax be passed via reconciliation as a budget issue. Tax bills have to originate in the House ( if I remember my civics) and must be passed by both Houses of Congress via normal rules. Am I stupid or just uninformed?

Not stupid. Not uninformed. Just silly.

Why should any government follow the rules laid out by the constitution? It is, after all, a living document that changes with the whim and wishes of the ruling aristocratic class. They have their own medical and pension plans so they are exempt from nobamacare and social security. No rules apply to them and you should know bettere to imply that there are.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

puma guy wrote:Can anybody answer a question about the congressional legislative process used to pass ObamaCare, which was reconciliation bypassing the 60 votes normally necessary to carry the Senate?

Since the mandate is ruled a tax how can a tax be passed via reconciliation as a budget issue. Tax bills have to originate in the House ( if I remember my civics) and must be passed by both Houses of Congress via normal rules. Am I stupid or just uninformed?

Not stupid. Not uninformed. Just silly.

Why should any government follow the rules laid out by the constitution? It is, after all, a living document that changes with the whim and wishes of the ruling aristocratic class. They have their own medical and pension plans so they are exempt from nobamacare and social security. No rules apply to them and you should know bettere to imply that there are.

Anygunanywhere

I don't disagree the members are a bunch of elitists for the most part and exempt themselves from many rules and laws they pass. I believe the need for 60 vote is adopted as a rule not Constitutional. I'm old and can't remember stuff. If I am right I would think Republicans would be challenging whether it was even legally a bill and maybe even mounting another run at the SCOTUS.

Yes.
The US Constitution says tax bills must start in the House of Reps.
So...
Harry Reid took a bill that had started in the House
Deleted all the words from the bill
Pasted in "Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care)" in it's entirety
Got at least 51 Senators to vote in favor
Then sent it back to the Nancy Pelosi controlled House of Reps.
And the House approved the 'changes'.

The Founding Fathers made the 'rules', er... Constitution
Harry and Nancy just 'play by them'.
The American voters referee. Please see the results of the 2010 election for their ruling. (And I hope the ruling will be reconfirmed in the 2012 election.)

tomneal wrote:Yes.
The US Constitution says tax bills must start in the House of Reps.
So...
Harry Reid took a bill that had started in the House
Deleted all the words from the bill
Pasted in "Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care)" in it's entirety
Got at least 51 Senators to vote in favor
Then sent it back to the Nancy Pelosi controlled House of Reps.
And the House approved the 'changes'.

The Founding Fathers made the 'rules', er... Constitution
Harry and Nancy just 'play by them'.
The American voters referee. Please see the results of the 2010 election for their ruling. (And I hope the ruling will be reconfirmed in the 2012 election.)

I would think the ACA could be modified, repealed, unfunded, etc by the same reconciliation process since that's how the Dems did an end run in the first place using the Byrd rules.

I keep a well worn copy of the Constitution on my desk, so had to double check the House/Senate vote count issue. Article 1, Section 7, seems to indicate only a simple majority to pass a bill to "raise revenue", but does stipulate a 2/3 majority in both chambers to override a presidential veto.

mr surveyor wrote:I keep a well worn copy of the Constitution on my desk, so had to double check the House/Senate vote count issue. Article 1, Section 7, seems to indicate only a simple majority to pass a bill to "raise revenue", but does stipulate a 2/3 majority in both chambers to override a presidential veto.

That is correct. 60 votes (3/5) were needed for cloture to avoid filibuster. That would never have been achieved, so reconciliation was used. I was vague in the manner I posed the question in the OP.
The House abandoned their bill in favor of the Senate bill so the bill was not a House Bill which was one of the points of the OP and now it has been ruled as a tax. That technically is un-Constitutional.