Fox News anchors can't grasp "pretty simple" legislative procedure
On March 16, Fox News anchors during their self-described daytime "news hours" repeatedly forwarded the false suggestion that, by using a legislative procedure known as the "self-executing rule" to finalize health care reform in the House, Democrats would be passing health care reform "without actually voting for it." In fact, implementing the proposed procedure requires a majority vote.
The New York Times reported on October 11, 2009, that Fox News claims its news hours are objective and defined as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays." Those weekday hours include America's Newsroom, Happening Now,and America Live, which replaced Live Desk in early 2010.
America's Newsroom: Procedure "actually pretty simple," but not for Fox's Hemmer
Hemmer: The self-executing rule "does not require a single vote." On Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer stated: "We start this morning with what could be the latest tactic to pass health care. Democrats considering pushing it through the House without actually voting on it. Now, how's that work? It's called the self-executing rule that does not require a single vote, and lawmakers on the Hill are apparently ready to use it -- but how and when?"
Hemmer calls procedure a
"political magic trick," but Cameron says it would simply pass the bill "in one
vote instead of two." Later on the
same edition of American Newsroom,
Hemmer introduced a segment on the self-executing rule by asking: "So a
fundamental question this morning, how do you pass health care reform without
actually voting on it?" Hemmer added that the rule, which he called a
"political magic trick," had never been used "on something as
enormous" as the health care reform bill.
However, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron explained
during the following segment that the self-executing
rule was "actually pretty simple," adding: "Deeming it as having
been passed is not the same as actually passing it, but there are a whole host
of ways in which Congress passes laws without actually casting votes. One of
them is with unanimous consent. [...] There is a variety of
ways." Cameron also reported
that "Deeming has been used, literally, for centuries"
and that Congress, by using this procedure, would pass health care reform
"in one vote instead of two."
Happening Now: Fox's Scott doesn't "understand that by voting on one, you're also voting on the
other"
Scott: "House Democrats are now considering a way to
pass the Senate bill without actually voting on it." On Happening Now,
co-host Jon Scott said that
"House Democrats are now considering a way to pass the Senate bill
without
actually voting on it." Scott went on to ask Carl Cameron: "So how
does this work? You pass a bill without voting on it?" Cameron noted in
response that under the procedure, a majority of the House would have
to vote to pass the rule under which the Senate health bill would be
deemed to have passed.
Scott: Process "would deem that the bill is passed
without actually taking a vote." During an interview
with Rep. James Clyburn
(D-SC) later in the broadcast, Jon Scott referred to reports that Pelosi would
use the self-executing rule "which would deem that the bill is passed
without actually taking a vote." Scott also asked: "[W]ouldn't it
be fair to the American people to let their elected representatives put it to a
vote?" Scott added that if "Pelosi deemed it to be passed, there
wouldn't be a vote." Clyburn responded that the rule had been used
"hundreds" of times during his time in Congress and that it was
"nothing unusual."
Baier responds to Scott: "[B]y voting on the one [bill]
you're also voting on the other." During another
segment on Happening Now, Fox
News host Bret Baier said to Jon Scott while discussing the self-executing
rule: "[Pelosi] said she likes it because it would mean one vote for House
members and they could conceivably tell their constituents that they didn't
vote on the controversial Senate health care bill. Now, you would have to suspend
your belief
as a voter or as a constituent that you wouldn't understand that by voting on
one, you're also voting on the other. But it is a little bit of a bank --
cushion shot in parliamentary procedure."
America Live: Fox's
Kelly
won't acknowledge Dems are "going to have to vote to do it that way"
Cameron explains the flaw in Kelly's statement that "[T]he House is now looking at passing the Senate version of the health care bill without actually voting on it." On America Live, Megyn Kelly reported: "[T]he House is now looking at passing the Senate version of the health care bill without actually voting on it. They will instead deem it passed and sort of say that it's passed and send it to Barack Obama for his signature, which is raising all sorts of issues." During the segment, however, Cameron explained that a majority vote would be needed in order to "deem it passed," stating:
There would be a vote on the reconciliation package of fixes [...] and in those fixes and corrections, there would be a line that says, oh by the way, the Senate bill is deemed passed and now we're onto the reconciliation fixes package. And that process would mean that there would be ballots cast on the rule for the reconciliation package, that would in the minds of Democrats and Robert Gibbs the White House spokesman just said a minute ago, would be the same as you would have a vote count that would say where people stand on health care.
After Kelly says Dems want to
"just deem it passed" rather than giving bill "an up or down vote," Hume notes
"They're going to have to vote to do it that way." During another America
Live segment, Kelly reported that Democrats might pass the Senate
bill "without giving it an up or down vote. Instead they'll just deem it
passed." Fox News senior political
analyst Brit Hume stated:
"Well, this has been done before, but not on anything of this magnitude or
this scale. But I'm not sure in the end if it matters, Megyn. They're going to
have to vote to do it that way. They'll have to vote to adopt the rule under
which that would be possible, and in effect they will be voting for the Senate
bill when they vote to pass the so-called fixes." Hume added:
"There's no way, really, around what would amount to an up or down vote on
this whole package."
Kelly refers to the "Democrats' plan, potentially,
to deem the Senate bill passed. In other words, they won't actually vote on
it." Also during America Live,
Kelly referred to the "Democrats' plan, potentially, to deem the Senate
bill passed. In other words, they won't actually vote on it, they'll just deem
it to have been voted on and passed." Kelly's guest, Rep. Robert Andrews
(D-NJ), responded that procedure
would "pass this legislation by a clear public record, up-down vote."
Proposed procedure requires a majority vote in the House
Ezra Klein: "[V]ote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill." In a March 15 blog post, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein explained that the legislative process Democrats are considering using, theself-executing vote "functions as a vote on the Senate bill" because "the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House 'deems' the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes." Klein wrote:
Here's how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.
The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.
It's a circuitous strategy born of necessity. Pelosi doesn't have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi's favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after.
CRS: Self-executing rule requires House's approval. A 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report makes clear that passage of a rule by the House is required for the "self-executing" rule to be adopted. From CRS:
Definition of "Self-Executing" Rule. One of the newer types is called a "self-executing" rule; it embodies a "two-for-one" procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the "self-executed" provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or "boilerplate," language, such as: "The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole."
Don
Wolfensberger, former chief
of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, stated in a 2006 Roll Call column:
Almost every major bill must obtain a special rule, or resolution, from the Rules Committee permitting immediate floor consideration. The resolution also specifies the amount of general debate time and what amendments will be allowed. A special rule also may contain other bells, whistles, gizmos and gadgets.One of these optional attachments is a self-executing provision, which decrees a specified amendment to have been adopted upon the rule's passage [emphasis added]. In other words, once the House adopts the special rule it effectively has adopted the amendment before the bill has even been called up for consideration [emphasis added].
Fox News previously misled over budget reconciliation process
Fox News repeatedly falsely labels reconciliation as "nuclear option." Fox News hosts and guests have repeatedly pushed the falsehood that the "nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process. The Fox Nation and Fox News personalities like Hannity, Van Susteren, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Bill Sammon have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option," and the Fox Nation has previously coupled its headlines with images of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear bomb:
Of course it's to be expected. After all, how many times have the right-wing knuckle-draggers been told it's the "DemocraTIC Party", yet they insist on calling it the "Democrat Party"????
Reconciliation: Bills considered under this procedure cannot be filibustered; they only need a simple majority to pass. Reconciliation was created as part of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act in an effort to make it easier to bring revenues and spending in line with caps set by the annual budget resolution. While the founders of the procedure did not envision it as a way to fast-track policy legislation, Congress has nevertheless used it to pass non-budget related measures, including welfare reform in 1996 and changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
"Deem and Pass:" This phrase refers to a House tactic that allows it to pass a bill without actually having a roll call vote on the legislation; it is technically known as a "self-executing rule." Here's how it works: The House Rules Committee is in charge of writing rules -- a playbook of sorts -- for floor debate. The rule dictates what amendments can be offered to a given bill and how long the bill will be debated, for example. A self-executing rule is essentially a two-for-one special; when the House votes to adopt a self-executing rule, it simultaneously adopts a separate bill or amendment, which is specified in the rule itself. In short, the House "deems" another bill to be passed as soon as it adopts the rule.
"So, a vote for the corrections bill would DOUBLE as a vote for the original bill too? That's not passing health care without actually voting on it. That's having the vote be for both the corrections to the healthcare reform bill and the health care bill."
I was right then, I'm still right, and how can it be that a legitimate news organization hasn't gotten it right STILL?
Well, the answer would be that they are NOT a legit news organization, that's how!
They are in a reconciliation process. WE KNOW it passed the house and senate. A conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.
And how do they approve of the conference report? THEY VOTE ON IT. If they don't vote, they're PASSING HEALTH CARE WITHOUT ACTUALLY VOTING ON IT.
"WE KNOW it passed the house and senate."
But there IS no "it" that has passed both houses, so HOW can "we" POSSIBLY know something that's demonstrably false?
A solution CAN be to have the conference committee iron out any differences. If that happens, than an ENTIRELY new bill is created that has to be voted upon.
Or a solution can be to use reconciliation.
And one of the options that can be used IS to have the legislature procedure known as a self-effecting rule used, which means, as I've been saying for the past week, would serve as a vote for the original bill and for the amended bill!
They aren't going to USE the conference committee pathway this time.
If you DON'T know that at this point in the discussion, then you shouldn't be trying to educate ANYONE ELSE!
They are going to pass the bill by using a self-executing rule which, like I've said countless times, passes two bills at the same time.
It's a lie to say that they aren't going to pass the Senate bill. They're going to pass the Senate bill AND the amendments with ONE vote.
BOTH are passing via a vote. You're just wrong. And every time you push this false story, you'll still be wrong.
And again, in case anyone missed it, you're the one who didn't understand about the use of the conference committee versus this pathway they're taking!
I get it. I've gotten it for the last week. It's a pretty simple legislative procedure. It's you who doesn't get it, just like some of the FoxNews staff doesn't get it.
Passing this bill without voting on a conference committee vote will be PASSING SOMETHING WITHOUT VOTING.
All caps, just for you dolly.
When there's a conference committee, there IS no need for a self-executing bill, since the revised bill has to be voted on by the House and the Senate in the same way that the ORIGINAL bill was voted on - in the Senate, that means with a 60 vote margin if the minority party objects and tries to filibuster and/or the majority can't pass a cloture motion.
Passing this bill without a vote that is SOLELY on this bill is NOT equivalent to passing something without voting. As I have been explaining since last week, the VOTE will pass both the original Senate bill and the revisions at the same time using the self-executing rule that's been used by Republicans and Democrats for YEARS.
You are really ignorant to keep SHOWING your ignorance and pigheadedness like this.
Please don't stop digging your own grave. Keep it up.
Great job kiddo, your gonna grow up to be a Fox News Reporter one day, aren't you!
They're making changes that are not going to be voted on, there is no conference committee to make a report to vote on. Passing something without voting on it is PASSING SOMETHING WITHOUT VOTING ON IT.
Get a clue.
Do you think we can't see your previous posts?
Here's what you wrote.
They are in a reconciliation process. WE KNOW it passed the house and senate. A conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.
You confused the conference committee process with the reconciliation process. (Neither of which has anything to do with THIS effort to use the self-executing rule anyway)
They are going to make changes to the Senate bill, and then they aren't going to vote on the Senate bill and the amendments separately. They're going to make one vote that would DOUBLE as a vote for the original bill too. That's not passing health care without actually voting on it. That's having the vote be for both the corrections to the healthcare reform bill and the health care bill."
You can keep saying an incorrect thing as many times as you want, but repeating it won't make it so!
You're the one who needs to get a clue. Even some on FoxNews have explained that this is voting on the Senate bill AND for the amendments.
If they pass this without voting on a conference report, like I've said twice now, they are PASSING SOMETHING WITHOUT VOTING ON IT. Dimwit.
You're the one who needs to get a clue.
It DOES matter. You don't understand how the House of Representatives works in a variety of ways to resolve conflicts in bills between Senate and House versions, nor do you grasp that those pathways have NOTHING to do with the self-executing rule in the House has NOTHING to do with either!
It has NOTHING to do with any conference report! There IS no conference report here, nor will there be ANYTHING like a conference report, you doofus.
You are the one who keeps demonstrating that you haven't got a clue here. Please, keep it up.
If they pass this using the self-executing rule, then they are passing BOTH the full Senate bill and the amendments at the same time. BOTH are being passed. Saying that they aren't passing the bill that came from the Senate is a LIE!
You're the one who doesn't get it.
Here's a link to a fuller explanation.
Get a clue, dolly. Get a clue. But please, keep digging your own grave.
There's NO conference committee meeting!
The Dems in the House are concerned about voting FOR a bill that has significant issues that they find concerning WITHOUT having a guarantee that the bill that will be submitted to Obama will have the fixes in it that they demand.
That's their concern. I HAVE a clue. I KNOW what their concerns are.
There is no conference report. This is NOT going to go to a conference committee, because if they had CHOSEN that path, then the revised bill crafted by that conference committee would require a 60 vote passage in the Senate!
The path they are choosing only requires a 50 vote passage in the Senate, since it's only amendments to the Senate bill that were done in a reconciliation process, and NOT in a conference committee process!
And it's hilarious that you somehow think that simply USING the same words I use means something. The facts are that they have to be backed up with evidence of what one is claiming, and your posts have none of that.
SIMPLY make your point or link us to your sources.
Get...a....clue.
Be sure you know what you're talking about before you cut-and-paste stuff all day.
I've posted it several times, and you didn't recognize where it came from? Is your reading comprehension THAT bad?
I copy my own words from another place on this thread, and YOU want to chastise me for not knowing what I'm talking about? Really? Man, do you have a nuclear-powered shovel or something, because you sure are digging that hole for yourself at an amazing pace!
Oh yeah, that's right, you didn't provide a single smidgen of ANY evidence, did you?
Nope, all YOU did was make a baseless personal attack since you couldn't refute any facts. Facts like YOU missed that what I had copied and pasted were the same words and ideas that I've expressed countless times.
You are the one who either has terrible reading comprehension or who is making baseless personal attacks. Please, keep it up. Keep showing us how your personal animus controls you.
DellDolly has very patiently posted and re-posted and reiterated and restated every aspect of the self-executing rule vs. the conference committee process vs. reconciliation. Dolly has been extremely clear in all of her(?) statements, as are the statements above in this MM piece.
Your continued blathering about conference reports and the bill not being voted on are meaningless at this point. You can say the earth is flat all you want, but it's SIMPLY NOT TRUE. You can say this will not be voted on in reconciliation, but it's SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
You need to RE-READ the ENTIRE piece above, and then re-read all of Dolly's remarks. YOU ARE WRONG. DOLLY IS RIGHT.
Stop being a Fluffer!! Fluffers are THE DREGS of this earth.
"Passing this bill without voting on a conference committee vote will be PASSING SOMETHING WITHOUT VOTING."
- Well they would definitely be voting in essence to get this bill passed, although you might be able to say they would not be voting on "it" (semantics -- the bill including the fixes).
"Passing something without voting on it is PASSING SOMETHING WITHOUT VOTING ON IT."
-You could argue this point because as I said above they aren't going to vote on the bill with fixes, however as Dell explained they would be IMPLICITLY or INDIRECTLY voting on the bill as it would be the logical result of a Yes vote.
So is THIS what happened all the times in the past that the republicans used this strategy?
At least be honest. If you don't like this legislative procedure, at least fess up to the fact that we need to change the rules now because you think Democrats need to operate at a higher standard than the republicans.
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
This bill violates the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause and Goes Against Substantive Due Process, inter alia. It will be trashed on judicial review oh and guess what, Congress cannot draft provisions that say "that cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court"... I cant believe anyone elected democrats who are willing to forego separation of powers and checks and balances. Read the Federalist papers, GO TO LAW SCHOOL... You will learn just how wrong this bill is after attending about ten sessions Constitutional Law. It's hilarious to see these "party line tunnel vision" fanatic democrats believe that even the passage of this bill will be a success. Obama flamed the Supreme Court at the State of the Union... They are going to destroy this bill not only because its Unconstitutional (so flagrantly that any first year law student could point it out and make a valid legal argument right out of the text of the Constitution without even needing to refer to the body of case law that interprets the Constitution)but because Obama offends what makes our government work differently than others: Separation of Powers (Vertical & Horizontal), Checks and Balances, a Process Driven Constitution Designed to prevent this VERY TYPE OF OCCURRENCE.
I am ashamed to say that some of you are my fellow Americans because of how polarized toward a party line you've become and how unintelligent that is by its very nature. Some of you are willing to sacrifice your own Constitutional Protections just because you believe in the Democratic Party?! You're being DUPED! Your congress cant get anything done without using fringe process rules that im sure most of you have ever heard of! Read the provisions of the bill ive put up please... and if after that you still want this bill... you should all gather your assets, purchase a piece of Antarctica and ruin each others lives down there all by yourself by making up your own rules. The people who wrote the constitution are definitely smarter than you and Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor for all of 5 classes... he's a fraud and most of the independents and republicans in the Law Professor field will tell you that but Not the Democrats, you ppl will do anything necessary to get what you want. You ppl elected Al Franken; that should make my argument right there
Furthermore, Political Analysts do not understand the American Common Law Legal System or the ramifications of passing this piece of legislature
This is why we licensed lawyers and people with law degrees commonly run for the legislature, because we actually know how it works. I dare one of you to try to argue that this bill does not violate the Due Process... Please... bring it
There will be one unified bill that goes to the President for signing.
Every member of both houses of Congress will have cast a vote on every aspect of that bill.
Those votes will be on record.
It looks to me as though all Constitutional requirements will have been met, albeit with a slightly non-standard route.
Someone correct me if I am wrong. The House is voting for the reconciliation amendments AND the Senate bill in a single vote. After the House vote, the reconciliation bill will still have to pass in the Senate with 51 votes before the entire bill can go to the President for his signature.
ONE way to resolve differences between Senate and House versions of a bill is to sent the bills to the conference committee.
ANOTHER way is to simply accept the other body's version without having to resolve any difference.
ANOTHER way to do it is through the reconciliation process, which does not involve ANY conference committee at all!
That last way is how they're resolving some of the differences between what the House wants and what the Senate bill includes. The House is going to have to live with some things that can't be changed using reconciliation.
If they were using the conference committee, then they could have at all the potential changes/compromises/amendments. But if they followed that path, then the revised bill that came out of the conference committee would require another 60 vote majority vote in the Senate.
They are using the reconciliation pathway, however. And with that pathway, the Senate bill, with the amendments that the House will submit later today, will be voted upon by the Senate and will only need a majority vote of 50, not a supermajority of 60.
Distinct from that process, they are ALSO using a rule called the self-executing rule, which means that when they vote on the amendments, they are ALSO voting on the full Senate bill!
If you can't understand this now, it's because you're too ignorant for words or because you won't understand it now.
Either option makes you a troll, and your posts troll posts.
I have no idea why fools like you like to brag about how unwilling you are to change your opinions in the face of contrary evidence, but it's not a good thing to brag about.
But please, keep doing so.
Keep posting Dolly, I either shake my head and smile or flat out laugh at your persistance.
**bored**
Try comic books.
And then launched into an explanation of the possible ways for the bill to pass. How is that out of context?
Here's what Dolly said. READ IT OR GO AWAY --
"There IS not going to be ANY conference committee report results to worry about. You're tried to claim that there will be a number of times, and EVERY time you have, you've been debunked. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself.
ONE way to resolve differences between Senate and House versions of a bill is to sent the bills to the conference committee.
ANOTHER way is to simply accept the other body's version without having to resolve any difference.
ANOTHER way to do it is through the reconciliation process, which does not involve ANY conference committee at all!
That last way is how they're resolving some of the differences between what the House wants and what the Senate bill includes. The House is going to have to live with some things that can't be changed using reconciliation.
If they were using the conference committee, then they could have at all the potential changes/compromises/amendments. But if they followed that path, then the revised bill that came out of the conference committee would require another 60 vote majority vote in the Senate.
They are using the reconciliation pathway, however. And with that pathway, the Senate bill, with the amendments that the House will submit later today, will be voted upon by the Senate and will only need a majority vote of 50, not a supermajority of 60.
Distinct from that process, they are ALSO using a rule called the self-executing rule, which means that when they vote on the amendments, they are ALSO voting on the full Senate bill!
If you can't understand this now, it's because you're too ignorant for words or because you won't understand it now.
Either option makes you a troll, and your posts troll posts."
It said "The 2nd part, "Every member of both houses of Congress will have cast a vote on every aspect of that bill", has not yet been met. That's why the dems are so afraid of a conference committee report."
He was wrong. I then explained WHY he was wrong.
Wow you're dumb.
Well, when you said "That's why the dems are so afraid of a conference committee report" would be ONE time.
There are many others here.
They aren't USING that pathway to get to the place where a bill can be sent to the President's desk for signature, so no, they are NOT afraid of that. They aren't using it. If they aren't using it, they can't be afraid of what will happen when they DO use it.
And you claimed that they are afraid of that - which means you're saying that they're going to USE IT!
We already KNEW that they aren't using the conference committed approach. They are using the reconciliation approach, which is NOT the same thing, not at all.
AND they are using a DIFFERENT thing too, the self-executing rule. And that self-executing rule is what this article is all about.
Trying to get through to you is like a camel trying to pass through the needle of an eye.
Your 1st example is false. I said the dems are afraid of it, WHICH IS WHY they're not using it.
Reading comprehension 101, delly.
In other words if the dems needed to fear a conference committee report because the above requirement "has not been met yet," then why don't they need to fear the self-extracting rule, which will also lead to the fulfillment of said requirement?
No one should dare to contradict the party line once its been established. No facts can refute the purity of ideology. Its been said before but these attitudes are right out of the stalinist and maoist playbook. Ironic... "Real America" does not need facts or fair and balanced media. "Real America" just needs a continual self esteem boost than only self promoting propaganda can deliver.
And so, the House of Representatives wants to be assured that what they are voting on is the corrected version of the bill.
So what they will be voting on is the corrections/amendments/revisions AT THE SAME TIME they will be voting on the core bill that came from the Senate.
And no, there's not serious concerns nor a significant possibility that what they're doing is unconstitutional.
The bill, once amended, will be quite a step forward. It's not perfect, and were the Repulicans not blocking it in the Senate, the best option would be to go to a conference committee - these same changes would get added plus a few other ones. But since the Republicans were obstructionists for so long, they purposely delayed this to hinder these actions.
Then go ask Newt Gingrich why he used it more than 35 times.
Also, to the Moderator -- where are my posts from yesterday? It's been long enough, and nothing I said was abusive, so why aren't my comments showing up now?
Just follow the logic - it's all straight lines.