The parliamentary ruling put a stop to a different thing. The Senate Dems were going to try to use reconciliation on a bill after it passed the House but before it was signed by the President.
That way the worried House Dems could be calmed into believing that the bill would not become law until changes were made. The ruling was that only after the bill became law by presidential signing could the so-called reconciliation proceed.
What THIS article is saying is that Louise Slaughter who runs the Rules Committee thinks she can put in a rule for this bill that says it passes without a recorded vote. Just declare it passed (if they don’t have the votes). I think there are limited circumstances where this has been done before, but never on something of this nature and magnitude. If a bill is about to sail through the House and there’s some time urgency, I think it has been done where it was declared as passed without a role call vote.
To threaten its use here smacks of a COUP, a dictatorship against the will of the people.
The Senate Parliamentarian does not rule on House procedures. If Slaughter’s rule declared the bill passed, and Obama signed it, that would suffice.
Anyway, Rush believes there will never be any reconciliation. That when the bill is signed into law that will be that.
So if this Unconstitutional plan doesn't work, would the Liberal Messiah simply declare Martial Law and enact ObamaCare by executive order? [/sarc]
The time for marching and protesting are over if this happens.