Why ObamaCare Cannot Simply Be Repealed…

FACT: ObamaCare was passed, using the original legislative vehicle, at 1:38am on 12/24/09 with 60 votes in the Senate (see below).  The House then approved that Senate Bill without changes; and in February 2010 created a secondary bill which created the opportunity for the Senate to modify ObamaCare using “reconciliation” for a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.

Literally under the cloak of darkness Democrats rammed their holy grail of a socialist construct down the throat of every American. We no longer needed to imagine having usurping representation that did not represent the will of the people – we saw it.

[Understand the full construct by reading HERE]  If you do not understand how legislation is created; if you do not understand the difference between the Senate and House; if you do not understand the way ObamaCare was created, you really need to read this first.

A clean repeal bill, meaning a law to repeal the entire ObamaCare construct only, would require another 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.

Republicans, while in the majority, only control 52 seats.  Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a “repeal bill”, any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.

This is why Mark Levin is a con-man; selling snake oil as outrage to keep a listening audience angry, yet clueless and hopeless.   That’s what I don’t like.

A complete repeal of ObamaCare is currently impossible.  The House Freedom Caucus can push all the repeal bills they want, but they cannot get a clean repeal bill through the Senate because they cannot get the 60 votes needed. Period.

Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever.  What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it.  A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.  The current Ryan bill is almost identical to the 2016 defunding bill everyone is mistakenly calling a prior “repeal bill”.

A complete independent repeal bill of ObamaCare is currently impossible.

The only bill that can pass the Senate is a bill that can utilize the process of reconciliation, which has a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.   A reconciliation bill is a budgetary bill designed around the financial drivers of ObamaCare.  This is what HHS Secretary Tom Price, Speaker Ryan and President Trump are attempting to do.

A reconciliation bill cannot add substantively to the existing law.  It can only modify the financial structures and retain the same 10-year budgetary impact.  If you want substantive adds or removals of the law, beyond the financial structure, it is no longer a reconciliation bill.

If it is no longer a reconciliation bill, it requires 60 votes.  52 Republicans + 8 democrats. Democrats have already stated they will not support any substantive changes that undermine the key ObamaCare provisions.

Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law…  The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority, for all legislation.

However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.

There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions.  What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.

The constitutional republic being now replaced with a pure majority rule democracy.  The founding fathers regarded majority rule democracy less desirable than a monarchy because a simple majority means mob rule.  At least in a monarchy you might get a wise king once-in-a-while.  In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything.  You go from being a nation of laws, to a nation of laws of the moment based on emotion.

Eliminating the 3/5th’s vote threshold in the Senate would also mean there’s no real reason to keep the Senate around when in the hands of the same party as the House. The House can pass 50% +1 bills all by themselves.  The Senate, the place where grand deliberations required the protection and consideration of the minority position, would be unnecessary.

All structural protections for the minority views would be dispatched.  Forever.

Without the filibuster rule, and with the Senate having only a simple majority rule for passage, there would no longer exist an internal legislative check for any minority party to  protect themselves from the laws created by a greater mob.

The ruling party would be in power as if they held a Senate super majority at all times.  As a consequence, with minority protection eliminated, legislation impacting Texas (or any state) is then ruled by the legislative federal dictates from those representing New York and California (or any other aggregate).  There is no legislative pressure to listen to, or consider, the position of the minority party.

You would think that constitutional conservatives would be necessarily predisposed against the dropping of a constitutional republic in favor of a pure democracy (mob rule).

However, within this current argument over the Price/Ryan approach to replacing ObamaCare you find exactly that.  Emotional conservatives, and crony-constitutional conservatives like Mark Levin, arguing against the current House bill leaving only the option to drop the Senate filibuster on legislation and pass laws with a simple majority.

So you tell me, is this really a constitutional-conservative approach?

Really and honestly?

Of course there are problems with the current Ryan bill.  It can only approach ObamaCare from the reconciliation aspect.  It cannot go into the substantive changes, adds or modifications because that would require the 60 vote Senate. Again, See Here.

Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare “repeal bill”. Ever.  What they did previously pass was a “defund bill” using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it.  A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.

Yes, the GOP could defund it 100% again, but then what?…  It still exists as a program, and Trump would have to fund the existing (non repealed law) from somewhere.  So you’re back to the 60 votes for a replacement again or eliminate the filibuster and go with the 51-vote threshold for all future legislation.

Back to current ObamaCare’s replacement – there are three options if we are going to retain a constitutional republic, and pass laws with the 60 vote senate filibuster threshold:

Option #1 –  We can do nothing – and allow ObamaCare to collapse on it’s own.  In the interim many Americans will be negatively impacted and the more vulnerable and needy will be worst hurt.  Premiums and co-pays continue to skyrocket while the insurance system tries to preserve itself.

Option #2 – We can Repeal and Replace using the three-phase approach being proposed by Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:

  • 1. Pass reconciliation legislation targeting the financial mechanisms.
  • 2. HHS rewrites rules.
  • 3. New laws are proposed by a full congress to adjust ObamaCare and add to it, and laws debated/passed.

Yes, this has it’s risks.  No guarantee you’ll get the cookie you want in phase three.

Option #3 –  Pass futile structural repeal bills in the House, and watch them pile up in the Senate without the ability to pass and earn 60 votes.   Shout and holler some more, gnash some teeth, and wait for 2018 when Republicans will attempt to win the other 8 seats needed.  Again, even less of a guarantee on the outcome.

Those are our options.

….Unless you want to eliminate the Constitutional Republic and kill the vote threshold in the Senate.  Even nasty Harry Reid didn’t do that when he created it.

Choose wisely.


This entry was posted in Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2016, Legislation, media bias, Paul Ryan, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

503 Responses to Why ObamaCare Cannot Simply Be Repealed…

  1. Trumpter says:

    If I trusted anyone in DC other than team Trump I would say go for it. As trust has been shredded by the Deep State Rino’s I am for letting it go down by itself. We can still claim that we tried to fix the problem but the Dem’s wouldn’t let us.


    • Blaming doesn’t work with most voters. Voters want their representatives to keep their promises, not whine and cry that the big, bad Dems wouldn’t let them do it. Didn’t you see how badly that tactic worked with the Dems? Total R control of both Houses and Pres. in about four years..

      Liked by 1 person

      • dstarke says:

        We claim that voters want repeal. This does not repeal. Therefore this keeps the promise no less than trying to repeal ans failing.


  2. sunnydaysall says:

    Thank you so much, Sundance for the ammo! I am out there trying to put out the fires and in some hot spots, your words are working! I wish I had more time and fingers for typing, but I am headed back into the fray with your words of wisdom… The neverTrumpers are having a field day with the repeal push and Trumpsters are falling for the rhetoric against Trump! I wish Trump would come out and explain all this, but then the dems would have all the info they needed to stop us at every turn! Come on people! This is a process… “Oh, ye of little faith” who believe that President Trump would renege on his promise to the people and be outwitted by a bunch of swamp leeches in congress…

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Matt712 says:

    I realize government healthcare is unconstitutional; so any replacement will also be unconstitutional, like most everything the federal government does. But there WILL be a replacement; so how does this market-based solution sound?

    Replace Obamacare with direct payments to a national Insurance Pool consisting of a small number of the lowest bidders for national group coverage, with an annual rebidding process to keep patient costs low, but fair to the Insurance Companies. Consolidate the bids into a single, fair rate.

    a. Eliminate the VA, Medicaid, Medicare, and all other government medical assistance programs and place those individuals into the Insurance Pool. Place all government employees with government-paid insurance, including the executive, judiciary and congress into the Insurance Pool, excepting regular active duty military personnel. Allow state and local government personnel, as well as businesses and individuals — everyone — to join the pool at the going rate.



    • Jan says:

      There are multiple solutions to this mess that are far greater than what Ryan presented yesterday.


      • dstarke says:

        Agreed. We must beat on this with many hammers:

        1) Introduce and pass repeal of O’care in the House. Give it all the time its needs in the Senate for those who support it to feel the heat.

        2) Do anything administratively possible to make O’care ineffectual.

        3) Mount a new Constitutional challenge and make sure that Justice Roberts knows that we will watch O’care and the healthcare industry crash and burn, unless it is overturned COMPLETELY.


  4. HolyLoly says:

    I see more options than the three sundance suggested.

    We could make amendments to phase one of repeal and replace to remove the new spending and tax credits and pass it through reconciliation, but that leaves phase two and three both of which would still require an unattainable super-majority in the senate leaving everyone frustrated with the process.

    I disagree that ending the senate filibuster would turn us into a full democracy because we still have representatives who are elected by the people. Best solution is repeal the 17th.

    How about temporarily suspending the filibuster to fully repeal Ocare? Then pass the free market solutions that are necessary to get the government out of our health care decisions. Then reinstate the filibuster. This is an emergency to correct the corrupt way the Dems passed this bill and to correct the corrupt way Justice Roberts justified its upholding!


    • Brenda says:

      I have tried to find out what the process is for suspending and reinstating the filibuster. How would that work? Because that was my idea also. Suspend filibuster for all legislation so as to move Trumps agenda through and put it back prior to 2018 election just in case that goes badly for Repubkicans


  5. I can’t support anything that doesn’t completely address full repeal and full replacement inside the time frame of this legislative session. There is only NOW with no guarantee of a “tomorrow” which is what Ryan wants us to buy into for our support of this bill.


  6. Justin says:

    The proposed bill instructs insurance companies to charge a 30% “penalty” for people who have had a break of 63 days or more.

    So, again, the Supreme Court ruled (unconstitutionally, IMHO) that only a tax, and not a penalty, would be constitutional. I believe both are unconstitutional, frankly.

    So how does the GOP expect this to pass muster?


  7. sargeyoda says:

    Thank you SD for this great article and clearing confusion! Too many influential conservative that I trust (Wayne Dupree and Bailie Jr.) seem to be angry that an actual repeal is being implemented! I have shared this on my twitter page and we need to inform our circles so we can support our President and our Congress members. If these bills are truly helping Americans, this is the best way to reform healthcare. We need to be unified behind our president especially with the wiretaps and Deep State surveillance controversy.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Wee2low says:

    WOW the IQ over at Breitbart hovers around 80 these days. You should go over there for a laugh at all of the conservatives yelling, “RINO!”, “paid Soros Troll”, “Trump is a fraud” when you try to explain the mechanics of this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jan says:

      Don’t act like a liberal an say that people who don’t agree with you aren’t smart enough to understand what’s best for them.


      • singingsoul says:

        If the people wanted a dictator P Trump would come up with excellent healthcare. Trump has been called Hitler and now that he honers the constitution and works with the branches of government people want a dictator. You cannot have it both ways. Ryan is set on his “Better Way” crap and obviously has support from half of his republican senators.
        Trump has to give if he wants anything done. Everything will be negotiated and these clowns hang impeachment over his head and investigation he has Russian connection . He is being undermined by the intelligence community. I wish any of you would understand he is busting his chops for us but cannot do it alone.
        All of you who do not like the healthcare go out protest Ryan and the GOP and democrats. Make you voice heard.


    • dstarke says:

      Sundance doesn’t explain where the 60% comes from in phase 3. Phases #1 and 2 will guarantee that the Repubs now own “Ryancare”. We’ve left them off the hook for their terrible legislating and provide no incentive for them to join us in fixing it. I can see the ads now.


  9. tytanshammer says:

    All of this would work if we were dealing with people who were willing to be straightforward and honest, but we are not Congress is as corrupt as ever and is putting forth the parts of the bill that they want and delaying the parts of the bill the don’t want till later. They have NO intention of enabling those things that would undermine the intentions of their political masters the globalists. That’s why its a 3 stage process, because its the manipulation of a shell game, because that is what they do. Make no mistake, it may take 20 years and a lot of fighting, but the end of this journey is a full repeal and we will not accept anything less.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Laura says:

      This is what I’m afraid of. You know, this is a MAJOR issue. Think of it, when tyrants want to take over the country one component is taking over people’s healthcare. Not to mention the odious practice of putting all of our most private business on the freaking internet, surely to be used against you one day if you are a political opponent. I am of a mind that this may be the one thing that I am willing to do whatever it takes, for all the marbles.


    • singingsoul says:

      I understand the second part of Ryan’s healthcare bill will be modified by Price and does not need congressional input.


      • dstarke says:

        Yes. It will, according to the MSM “break” Obamacare and the result of phase 2 is that Repubs will FOREVER own government-meddled healthcare in America. There is no incentive then to provide the needed votes for phase 3.


  10. AndrewJackson says:

    Sundance where does the nomination of Gorsuch fit into this? If the dems filibuster his nomination, couldn’t we use that as justification to avoid the slow mess of slicing and dicing zerocare?


  11. Lin Rei says:

    I agree with President Trump Obamacare premiums are out of control … a lot of people have been priced out insurance due to skyrocketing premiums

    ….. so gotta love the GOP solution —push premiums even HIGHER for the age bracket (50-64 yrs)

    GOP plan calls for RAISING premiums from 3X cap to 5X cap for people in their 50’s and 60’s who’ve paid in all their lives into insurance only to get pushed off insurance rolls just at the age they are finally might need to access major medical care.

    I’m in the 50-64 age bracket and have responsibly paid premiums all thru my 20’s, 30’s, 40’s… only to face 5X premium … straw meet camel’s back.

    I guess I feel kicked in the gut to hear my President (whom I enthusiastically volunteered to put in office) ….to hear President Trump call this plan “wonderful.”

    IF President Trump were telling us he recognized some problems with ACHA. If POTUS were saying this is the best we can do given political constraints in the Senate..then I might understand as I was being pushed under the bus that nothing more could be done, but at least he recognizes the severe consequences for my age bracket.

    But no, instead he’s saying it is “wonderful” and so much better than Obamacare ..

    .Well considerably higher premiums is not better for MAGA’s older voter base.

    I care deeply about borders, national security, economy, soverign nation, MAGA …But physical survival rather pushes aside most politcal ideology. I don’t get it… 50-64 year olds …that’s the Trump voter demographic

    Okay, solutions. Wish we’d slow down and take a look at other countries models that have had better success lowering the cost of medical care with better health outcomes. There are a few countries ranked at much lower 1/4 the medical cost per capita and much much better health care outcomes than the U.S. … What are they doing right that might help us find a way to a better healthcare system?

    For people currently uninsured due to Obamacare premium hikes, there is a website http://selfpaypatient.com that has tons of resources for locating cash discount surgery and other self-pay options for anyone already uninsured. Good luck all.


    • Joan says:

      I would urge you to send all of your comment in a letter to President Trump. I just wonder whether he really knows all of what is in Obamacare 2.


  12. Pam says:

    I wish our GOP purists in congress (which imo are hypocrites) because they weren’t forced off of their current plans would wake up and realize the importance of trying this stupid move of a clean repeal (which won’t happen because the votes aren’t going to be there) would think about what will happen to the folks who could lose their plans without having a replacement ready to go soon afterward. POTUS has warned congress repeatedly about not letting something like this happen.

    Yes, a complete start over would be nice but the votes won’t be there in the senate. Period.


  13. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog argues that the Senate leadership does not have to accept the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling on reconciliation, and therefore 60 votes is not necessary to have a comprehensive Obamacare replacement bill. The GOP leadership can argue the entire Obamacare monstrosity is a budgetary, tax bill and therefore the 60 vote super-majority nature of the Senate is not threatened:

    “But there is an alternative view of what is possible through reconciliation. Under that view, reconciliation applies not just to tax or spending provisions, but also to regulations whose main effect is on taxing and spending.

    It is also possible, and I think correct, to view the core of Obamacare — the mandate, the subsidies, the insurance policy requirements, etc. — as a single, integrated mechanism. Under that view, it makes little sense to divvy up its component pieces into spending/taxing provisions and other provisions. Everything is part and parcel of the whole.

    Republicans should take the view that Obamacare can be replaced entirely through the reconciliation process. They should go back to the drawing board and come up with a free-standing replacement, get it through the House, and bring it to a vote in the Senate under reconciliation.

    If, after the Democrats raise a point of order, the parliamentarian sides with them, they should vote to reject the parliamentarian’s ruling which is advisory only, not binding. This they can do without a super-majority.

    Here’s what Republicans should not do. They should not pass Speaker Ryan’s replacement legislation. It effectively maintains the Obamacare subsidies (in the form of tax credits) while removing the subsidy-funding mechanism (the individual mandate).

    This approach seems certain to hasten the Obamacare death spiral. When that happens, Republicans, not the Senate parliamentarian, will own the consequences.”


  14. Jan says:

    The bill as is is not even a solution. They are saying it is a work in progress so why not get something done that makes sense before releasing something that does not?
    They are making this so much harder because they don’t won’t to get rid a rule in the senate. That’s cowardice. The people just gave the Repubs the entire Gov’t. Why are they afraid? They didn’t do much when in the minority anyway. This is what so many are angry about. Why care so much about a 60 vote rule when the people could actually give the Repubs 8 more seats in the next election. This is nonsense. Change the rule. Do the right thing by those who voted you into power and you won’t need to worry about the next time the Dems control both houses because it will a long time before that happens again IF you keep your promises.


    • Serpentor says:

      I’m with you. I acknowledge the three choices and also realize that the political capital is not strong enough to truly fix the problem. Instead of submitting dog sh** to the American people and thus reducing trust and political capital, I suggest options 1 & 3 while ACA crashes and burns.

      Never back a pile of dog sh**, even if it would be slightly better than what we have now.


  15. Bruce says:

    the 17th Amendment was ratified 1913. The republic was functioning without it. Senators were picked by elected reps from their state and there was no outside the state money influence. What is bad about that.

    This country will collapse anyway if handouts continue. America is about trading work for pay, not about handouts forever to those who never work.


  16. We Are Borg says:

    We don’t HAVE to repeal Obamacare, just eviscerate it from the inside out, just digest the thing like a giant parasite!

    I recall reading a number of commentaries on the actual language from parts of the ACA shortly after Obama signed off on it; more than a few reviewers who actually read this monstrosity noted how virtually every other regulation contained a clause stating, in affect, how the HHS Secretary would has certain discretionary powers over the implementation and procedural protocols associated with the regulation in question

    This law is not only HUGE, it requires the combined AI computing capacity of the NSA, CIA, Goldman-Sachs, Google and Amazon just to figure out what all this stuff does — no single human (let along Congress) could comprehend the entirety of this thing. And THAT, my friends, is ACA’s Achilles Heel — most of it is so open to interpretation, it can say whatever the Secretary BELIEVES it says.

    So-o-o-o … We get out the ol’ red pencil and make few procedural changes — regulation by regulation. We do it quietly, trickling down mundane daily procedural updates throughout this bloated organization. A few EO’s from the White House would help speed things along as well, like what they did with the IRS regarding the need to respond to Line 62 on Form 1040.

    I belief there’s a whole lot we can do to essentially neuter this abomination while Congress works through the longer-term replacement process.

    And if the Secretary seemingly “accidentally” oversteps his bounds by rendering a few onerous regulations essentially ineffective, let Congress sort it out. After all, he’s simply performing his job in accordance with provisions as stated in the law. I’d love to see the likes of Chucky Schumer and Little Al Frankenstein parse over every word of some poorly-written regulation only to encounter the phrase “… at the Secretary’s discretion … “.

    Conservatives need to chill on this issue! Sundance is quite right, there’s no way we can outright repeal ACA, but we CAN place procedural maggots in the belly of the beast — let them slowly consume their fat host until there’s nothing left but a dried up shell.


  17. Bubba says:

    If Obamacare stays in place as is, then we won’t have a republic anymore anyway. The healthcare system will go into a death spiral from high costs/low participation and insurance companies will fail. This result will add to the national debt and will be devastating to so many people. What comes from the ashes as a new healthcare system is anybody’s guess.

    Dems passed Obamacare using gimmicks, in a disgraceful way and in the dead of night, when the majority of the country did not want it. It was then upheld by a compromised SCOTUS Chief Justice who rewrote the law.

    Change the Senate rules to 51 votes
    Pass the repeal/replace plan
    Then change the Senate rules back to 60 votes

    Let the Dems pound sand. We’ll deal with them if/when they ever get the Senate back in our lifetimes.

    We have no choice because there’s no way in hell that the 3 steps outlined by SD will ever happen!


    • Jan says:

      House Dems used “the rules” today to force votes on adjourning 3 TIMES.
      Ryan ignored regular order on his bill.
      Clapper lied to Congress. So did Hillary.
      Why are the Repubs and Trump worried about the Senate’s filibuster rule?


      • Bubba says:

        Congress uses the rules as an excuse when they don’t want to do something and they change or ignore the rules when they want to sneak something through. Every single institution in our world has been corrupted. The only way we’re getting back on track as a society is by winning the epic fight before us.

        The only rules that matter, in the end, are the rules of the jungle. The tiger eats the lamb. That’s life whether we’re talking about animals, nature, mankind, corporations, military, nations, or anything else in this cruel world. Win or be defeated.


  18. There is one more choice if USA and its media and its alter-media and its contra-media and all other media forms, as well as all who care about USA over themselves, had a backbone

    We all know the four lies told by so many elected DC Democrats from the just elected House members to the more senior ones and same for the Senate and same for Obama and Gruber and possibly Biden as a knowing part of a fraud on an UNREVEALED (til the last minute) bill.

    It was fraud pure and massive explained unquestionably correctly by a greedy Gruber in his videos found in November 2014, eight at least it is said in number. But then the White House said Gruber was not involved in ACA early planning shortly thereafter. That was unequivocally false as the number of e-mail communications by Gruber and the WH were near a hundred. The hub of the lies lied to USA and thereby extended the Statute of Limitation.
    Prosecute the fraud and revoke in federal court the fraudulently passed bill from top to bottom, right to left, front to back and in all other dimensions the bill might have attained when fraudulently made law.

    But no such as you and the rest of the so-called non-mainstream media will never discuss this as y;all are years late in the game


    • Maquis says:

      No federal court exists that would acknowledge the fraud inherent in this bill, and the treachery in creating it. Even if one were of the correct understanding, it would still defer to P-hat Roberts of SCOTUS.

      I trust Trump.


  19. saintoil says:

    I TRUST Donald on this one. Educate yourself via Sundance and undertstand what we are doing. All hell is arrayed against him. I will not ankle bite. Getting anything done and then watch the defeated Dems come around to support reconciliation knowing they will have the albatross off of their backs.


  20. TEXASLW says:

    NO replacement… Until the actual cost of healthcare is brought down by breaking the medical monopolies nothing will change. Any plan put out by .GOV is not sustainable. There is not enough tax payer money to keep it going. Tax payers are tapped out. It all needs to crash and burn. Insurance does NOT equal healthcare. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231890


  21. HRR says:

    Wait… I understand the constraints of Senate rules. But does Reconciliation require the Refundable tax credits in the GOP bill? Does Reconciliation require that all of the Obamacare taxes cannot be eliminated forever? The GOP bill just reinforces that the Republican leadership continues to embrace the heavy hand of government in healthcare for Americans.


  22. pls says:

    I think it’s very odd to defund a program by passing a bill in the House and Senate and expecting the President to sign it. Since all expenditures have to originate in the House, the normal way to defund something is for the House to not pass funding in the first place. The Senate can’t reject nor the President veto the absence of funding.

    That the President COULD do it to veto the entire budget bill, “shut down” the Federal government, and blame the Republicans. The press parrot any positions the Democrats take and the Congressional Republicans are mostly pusillanimous poltroons so this was an effective threat.

    As far as reducing the requirement for a filibuster, I have no problem at all with eliminating filibuster on a bill that only repeals a law. I like having a higher vote requirement to make a law than to eliminate one.


  23. int19h says:

    The initial Senate rules as adopted in 1789 didn’t have a provision that would enable filibuster, so what’s all this talk about how it’s necessary for a constitutional republic? It wasn’t even possible until 1806, and the rule change that made it wasn’t intentional to enable it. It wasn’t until 50 years after the Republic was founded that filibuster was used by the minority to block the majority.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s