This is really thorough, excellent and thought provoking work. Thank you, Cbolt.
However, I am not sure the constitutionality of this procedure is so clear cut. Although the “deem and pass” procedure has been used before, the SCOTUS has said in past cases that the repetition of an unconstitutional process does not make it constitutional. According to Politico, Alan Morrison, the professor at George Washington University Law School who authored the brief challenging the line item veto (which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1998) said, “You run the risk that it (the healthcare bill) could be declared unconstitutional.” Politico says that John Paul Stevens defined the procedure in the line item case as having three steps: approval of a bill by one house, approval of the “exact text” by the other house and a presidential signature. The constitution explicitly requires that each of these three steps be taken before a bill “may become a law” he wrote. I suppose it will all boil down to whether the rule (deeming) with the House Concurrent Resolution constitutes approval of the bill.
"Deemed passed" is a legislative fiction. I believe its function in the health care bill context is to substitute Concurrent Resolution (enroll only if changed by concurrent resolution) for the usual amendment process.
A made-up, specific example: The House deems HR 3590 to have passed, provided A concurrent resolution is passed (this is what the rule will say, in my prediction). Now suppose that the concurrent resolution (which goes to the Senate) opens with "remove all after the enacting clause, and substitute (blah blah blah)" The House will vote on the concurrent resolution. If it rejects it, it rejects both HR 3590, and the "substitute amendment." If it passes, then the entirety of HR 3590 is now House language, to be approved by the Senate.
Constitutional?
Now a completely made up, other example: The House deems HR 3590 to have passed, but the concurrent resolution is renaming a post office. NOW we have a problem, because HR 3590 and the concurrent resolution are totally independent; and one of the two appears to be skipping a vote by the House.
But as long as the concurrent resolution is related to HR 3590, that is, it "amends" or "changes" it, the net result at the end of the process is the same as if the House actually took up HR 3590 and amended it. The net result, and the point of reference used (so far) by the Courts is embodied in the enrolled bill, and doesn't pierce the question of the process Congress used to reach majority agreement in both chambers.