Under "Obamacare" 27% to 32% of insurance premiums will go for profits and administrative costs ...

[grantcart]

69. Quoting Senate Rules in plain English has had no impact on you so further

discussion is unlikely to have any impact.


Let's back up a little.

In a related thread you said

"News flash! It only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, not 60."

This was shown to be nonsense and so you moved to post threads that make it appear that Reid has used the rules to 'suspend' the filibuster.

That simply is not the case.

In the thread that you refer where Reid used the 'nuclear' option, he in fact did not use the nuclear option to 'suspend' the filibuster;

He used the 'nuclear option' to curb additional ammendments to a bill that had already passed colture and therefore was instituting an interpretation to the rules (not a new rule) that you could not have repeated flilibusters after a vote for culture had been passed.



The Nuclear Option is not a motion to change the rules on cloture. To ammend the rules on cloture you would have to have two thirds of the Senators Present

quote

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26%2A2%3C4QLS%3E%0A

However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if all 100 Senators vote.

Unquote

If you had 10 Senators present then you could change the rules on Cloture with only 7 Senators.



Let's be clear on the fact so far;

1) You have to have 60 Senators to invoke Cloture

2) You have to have Two thirds of the Senators present to change the rules of Cloture.


You have moved from the silly ""News flash! It only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, not 60."

to the somewhat more reasonable but still eroneous assertion by implication that by using 51 votes you can change the rules of the Senate.

This is simply NOT TRUE. Quoting other equally uninformed sources that it is, doesn't change the fact that it is not true.


Please read this carefully so that you don't continue to misunderstand and mistate this on a daily basis;

The 'Nuclear Option' is not an attempt to change or ammend a Senate Rule.

The 'Nuclear Option' is a procedure where the procedure of the filibuster is FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS THEN APPEALED AND AFFIRMED BY THE MAJORITY AND THEN IS ESTABLISHED AS A PRECEDENT. IF PASSED BY A MAJORITY THEN IT WOULD BE HELD AS A PERMANENT PRECEDENT AND THE FILIBUSTER, OR SUPER MAJORITY FOR CLOTURE COULD NEVER BE USED AGAIN.

As evidence I now cite this explanation from the Wikipedia page

A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

The Nuclear Option has never been used, because if it had been then the filibuster would be finished. As the same article explains;

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

So in the article that is quoted above the writer is completely incorrect that the 'nuclear option' was used to stop a filibuster. In that case the filibuster was already ended and Reid used the same procedure above to find that parlimentary moves after the vote for cloture was taken was unconstitutional.

Summary

We have no proven that;

1) Senate Rules for Cloture require 60 votes

2) Senate Rules for Changing the Rules for Cloture require 2/3rds of the Senators Present.

3) The so called 'nuclear option' would not close debate on a particular bill but it would raise the issue of the filibuster as unconstitutional and after a ruling from the Chair could be decided by 51 Senators. It would however become a precident and forever eliminate the filibuster on all bills.

To continue to post multiple posts suggesting that the President could have passed single payer or the public option with 51 votes is nonsense.

I have now proven this in detail. To continue to do so really calls into question your ability to understand the basic issues at hand.