Skip to comments.DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION?
Posted on 07/01/2012 8:51:53 AM PDT by MrChips
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION? . . . . I heard somewhere that if Obama wins re-election (God forbid) but the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, that the bill can be repealed as a reconciliation bill WITHOUT the president's signature. Is that true?
I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a “tax,” it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.
I think it takes a two thirds majority in both House and Senate to override a Veto of a bill....I’m guess the repeal bill would be vetoed and they’d have to have at least 2/3 majority both places to override - killing Obamacare
Not true. Legislation still requires the President’s signature.
Obama ain’t winning..
All the Republicans have to do if they take control is “Deem Any bill they wish to have been passed” just like Nazi Pelosi. Hell they could deem any bill vetoed by obama to be overridden by a simple voice vote, just like Nazi Pelosi. But they won’t.
Not by a President Oboma, but yes with a President Romney. Her point was win the Senate (not requiring 60 votes) and he White House and you can repeal by reconciliation. Don’t know if they would have the guts to do it, but the Rats dit it in passing initially. Not too much precedent.
The President either has to sign it or if he vetoes then it takes 2/3 majority vote to overide the veto.
It won’t matter because if he wins a second term it will mean the Mayans were right and 2012 is the end of the world.
I have heard Michele Bachmann and others say that now that it is officially a tax, it can be overturned by 50 + 1 in the Senate.
I believe this is correct.
I’m with ya.
Even after just one term it is already the end of the U.S. as we know it.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacares health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.
Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law or even the full law itself.
Come on now....where’s that “Fightin” spirit and positive attitude?
“Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he expects Republicans to use reconciliation in the repeal effort during the 113th Congress. Kyl is not running for reelection.
Mike Franc, Heritages Vice President of Government Studies, explained the details of reconciliations applicability thusly:
Now that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a tax, there is no longer any doubt that the Congress, and more specifically the Senate, can repeal it pursuant to the simple majority vote threshold available under the Budget Acts reconciliation process. Some Senate insiders were concerned that the reconciliation process would leave too much of Obamacare intact, including the individual mandate. But todays decision, while alarming in so many other ways, dispels with that concern.
The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senates filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.”
(same source as my previous post)
It does not seem to meet the Constitutionally defined enumerated taxes Congress has the power to levy
I don't get the conservative optimism over a silver lining
Our Republic was usurped in 2009 (if not sooner) and the usurpers are bound and determined to impose a health control scheme on the American people by fiat from one branch of government or another, or all 3. and the GOP will go along.
So they will.
Reconciliation can’t be used on the Mandate. It CAN be used on a couple of minor provisions, but that’s it. And, as others said, it requires the President’s signature regardless.
Could a Republican President issue an Executive Order to ignore the law even of it’s on the books like Obsma did re immigration?
If Obama wins re-election, he will DECLARE HIS DOG "BO" to be a SENATOR, completely destroying all power of the Senate, and he will simply ignore them from then on.
“now that it is officially a tax,...”
I keep seeing this and hearing people say it, but I can’t find anywhere that it is somehow a tax declaratively - including the majority SCOTUS opinion written by Roberts.
Roberts merely said that it can be looked at as a tax (essentially) because it is a penalty under the taxing authority and collected by the IRS, but it is not considered a tax under statute. This means that the court treated it as a tax in order to even hear the case, and to rule the way they did. If it was truly a tax in the traditional sense, then the case would have been denied and someone would have to wait to file until they were “injured” by the law (IOW only after they had to pay the tax, not before).
I think the opinion was written specifically to allow all of the pols to split hairs and have it both ways as is and whenever necessary.
That’s my 2 cents on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.