Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
It was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. In my attempt to be terse, I misused the word unconstitutional. I meant "in spirit," not literally. The bi-cameral system set up was to have the wise Senate debate legislation and slow down the passion of the House. The rule of a 60 member vote is key to that system. Because there are provisions set forth in the Constitution which require a vote (budget and nominees), it is necessary to override that rule at times. However, legislation is not required and overriding that rule for legislation sets the two houses of Congress on equal terms, which is definitely a violation of system intended by the framers. Of course, in order to accept that, one must read history as to the "intent" of the framers - and I know how you guys feel about The Federalist Papers, the Great Compromise, etc.
|
Actually, the senate was supposed to do all that because it does not allocate it's seats proportionally, and as such it is a sort of protection for smaller states.
This whole thing about the "rule of 60" and the "spirit of the constitution" is a bit meaningless, given that cloture was established in 1917 and current 60 vote rules were established in 1975.
Add to that the fact that filibusters were never used this widely
and it's hard to argue for "tradition" or "spirit."
The fact is that the filibuster is a procedural move that has been used historically to block an up and down vote. The reconciliation process is also a procedural move that has also been historically used to get around a filibuster. There is no more nobility to one of these acts than the other. And as far as using a reconciliation to pass healthcare legislation, isn't healthcare legislation essentially a matter of budget? Especially this bill: raises taxes on some types of insurance, subsidize others, etc.