Will it pass?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

And since that technically is not "passed" under the constitution, all that is required is a lawsuit to get it to the Supreme Court..

I think you need to read up on the Senate and House Parlimentary rules, before you get all hyped up on "technically not passed-lawsuit" nonsense. That's just not true.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think you need to read up on the Senate and House Parlimentary rules, before you get all hyped up on "technically not passed-lawsuit" nonsense. That's just not true.

No one disputes that both chambers can and do define parliamentary rules. The question is whether the "voting for a rule to declare an unvoted piece of legislation as passed" violates the intent of the Constitution. That is certainly a legitimate question for the Supreme Court, and given the contentious and sweeping nature of the bill, I expect to see that angle used.

The best bet of those who support the bill, even you Riot, is that the bill pass on a straight up and down vote as we've been passing legislation for 231 years, and then the President can sign it. Anything other than that will not get support or even compliance from those of us opposed.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No one disputes that both chambers can and do define parliamentary rules. The question is whether the "voting for a rule to declare an unvoted piece of legislation as passed" violates the intent of the Constitution. That is certainly a legitimate question for the Supreme Court, and given the contentious and sweeping nature of the bill, I expect to see that angle used.

The best bet of those who support the bill, even you Riot, is that the bill pass on a straight up and down vote as we've been passing legislation for 231 years, and then the President can sign it. Anything other than that will not get support or even compliance from those of us opposed.

no. it's not.

The judicial branch has no business dictating how the legislative branch does it's buisness. it would be a sweeping change to the balance of power between the branches of government if the supreme court inserted itself in the legislative process as you suggest.

and it's not going to happen. i don't know what blog you're reading that suggests this is a possibility but it simply isn't.

i'm not into political astrology which is why i stay away from guessing what happens on the vote. but this isn't astrology. you have as much chance of this happening as the birthers do of removing obama because he's not a natural born citizen.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

The judicial branch has no business dictating how the legislative branch does it's buisness.

They do this every time they rule a law unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court has the power to judge the laws, but not how the law was "passed", even if the passage mechanism may not itself have been implemented in a constitutional way?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They do this every time they rule a law unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court has the power to judge the laws, but not how the law was "passed", even if the passage mechanism may not itself have been implemented in a constitutional way?

they rule on the content of a law when they rule it unconstitutional.

they would be ruling on the process the legislative branch used (not the content of the law itself) if they did what you suggest.

so yes, i'm saying the judicial branch of government has no say in how the legislative decides to do it's buisness.

if a majority of the house makes a rule, it takes a majority of the house (not the supreme court) to change that rule.

what you're suggesting (the judicial branch deciding how the legislative should operate) is what's actually unconstitional.

[joeydb]

I'm only saying that because it is also the Constitution that determines how the powers are divided among the branches and what limits are on those powers.

It is possible for the legislature to adopt rules or parliamentary procedure that would in itself be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to be the one to rein that in because the legislative branch will not do that for itself.

Usually it's the Supreme Court through judicial review. The President ideally would not sign a bill into law when he thinks the procedure to get it to his desk was unconstitutional. That's not going to happen here.

The branches by design do keep an eye on each other with regard to the constitutionality of their actions.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'm only saying that because it is also the Constitution that determines how the powers are divided among the branches and what limits are on those powers.

It is possible for the legislature to adopt rules or parliamentary procedure that would in itself be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to be the one to rein that in because the legislative branch will not do that for itself.

Usually it's the Supreme Court through judicial review. The President ideally would not sign a bill into law when he thinks the procedure to get it to his desk was unconstitutional. That's not going to happen here.

The branches by design do keep an eye on each other with regard to the constitutionality of their actions.

this is the incorrect assumption that leads to the wrong conclusion.

rules the legislative branch adopts to govern itself aren't subject to review by any other branch of government. a single senator recently stopped the senate in it's tracks for a week. no one that i'm aware of questioned the constitutionality of senate rules that allow this.

and for a good reason.

the constitutional crisis would occur when the judiciary inserted itself into the process of making laws instead of simply reviewing the law itself.