nt

applies to both chambers. Any violation of its strictures can be tossed (absent Biden or, believe it or not, maybe with Biden) whether in a Senate bill so denominated and if permitted or, more likely, in a House bill sent to the Senate.

It has been a long time since I read the thing (the cooler heads opposed the entire bill on the Senate Floor), and I dont have a copy in my office, but that is my recollection.

I am not entirely sure of this either but the bill probably has to originate in the House, so there will be no Senate bill, per se, and the House bill will be the vehicle.

Either way, it will be important to lather up Senators Demint, Bunning, Hatch et al to make sure there is objection to the appointment of conferees. (Best I recall, the Budget Act does not preclude a conference.) Without that objection, there might not be another damaging vote in the House — assuming at least one Senate Amendment carries.

For here on out until November, our Senators need to halt all legislative or executive action in the Senate. I have seen it done with two Senators. With forty-one (wait a minute — I forgot Graham) with forty Senators, it is a peice of cake — if they suck it up and get a cup.

The real key to stopping Obama is the preceding paragraph, but I dont think I have yet seen that comment on this site.

A real filibuster never waits on the target — that is always too late.

will take the last first. Unfortunately, it cant be answered without being a tad long winded.

The Senate Rules govern a continuing body, hence they are not redone at the beginning of each Congress as in the House. The fact that the Senate Rules tend to be immutable is a function of the six year term and that only one-third up for reelection every two years. It is also a function of the unique requirement of the Constitution that no State can be denied equal suffrage in the Senate.

That’s background. The old Rule 22 (the filibuster/cloture rule) required two thirds of the Senate present and voting to close debate on any measure, motion, or matter (on a cloture petition signed by twenty senators and filed at the desk). About 1974, Rule 22 was amended to reduce the number from two-thirds of those present and voting to two-thirds of the entire Senate. This change had initially little effect because in those days it was about as hard to get sixty Senators in the Chamber as it was to get two-thirds of those actually there to envoke cloture. But new Rule 22 make no change to cloture if the matter subject to cloture should be to change the Rules. In short, for a long time, it was just a wash. That has changed.

So, the first answer is this: it takes two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to change the Senate Rules and the Rules are never made anew. If you round up the troops, 34 Senators can block any Rule change.

The blunder of passage of the Budget Reconciliation Act was caused because the Senators elected by television had no real respect for the institution and thought it was just dandy to kill their own power (and that of the then sovereign state they represented) by a statute fosted on them by the House — the Budget Act. Hence, the present debacle. The stability the framers crafted for the Senate was wrecked.

Jack, I have a short meeting. More to follow, and I look forward to working with you.

Apart from killing extended debate in the Senate and destroying the Senate as the greatest deliberative body on earth, proceedings under the Budget Reconciliation Act are pretty much, best I remember, the same as on an appropriations bill originating in the House.

There is a germaness rule in both cases, i.e. one is not “supposed” to legislate on and appropriations matter. (The way to circumvent the latter is to start all amendments with the magic words, “None of the funds appropriated by this Section,” for example, “shall be obligated or expended to fund The Annoited One’s Blackberry.”)

Anyhow, I think the procedure is that the House to act last asks for the conference first (if it wants one), but I may have that backwards.

What matters is that if the Senate amends the House Reconciliation Bill in any fashion, there could be a call for a conference — which would be deadly to the movement. But a Senator with courage can block a conference by forcing a vote on the appointment of conferees WHICH IS A MEASURE SUBJECT TO RULE 22. All that needs be said are a serious Senator’s most potent two words, “I object.” (It least that’s the way I recall it being.)

Final increment next. Lord willing.

I think I lost my on way here and probably answered this one pretty much already.

But your point is, if it is decided, then what is there to discuss. Obviously, nothing, which is the reason the dems are desperate for no Senate amendments.

If their reconciliation bill is not amended it goes straight to the President after the Senate approves. It will be a joint resolution and thus require the same formalities as would any statutory enactment. It cannot be a concurrent resolution because a reconciliation measure, touching money (a money bill) must have the force of law.

Anticipating your new question, you have the main point: the Senate has a golden opportunity to destroy the reelection hopes of the dems in the Senate by creating fifteen second TV ads for the use of the opponent of any Senator voting to table ANYTHING that the vast majority of Americans would find meritorious. I have actually been present when they tabled the Lord’s Prayer. It was a real close vote.

Jack, many thanks. I’ll try to pick up the thread at your second full question after a quick lunch.