Thank you for the reply... This was exactly the reason for my post, to challenge my logic, which I now see is flawed on the Yea/Nay point. I regret the error, but I’m glad to have a better picture of the constitutional grounds. What is your interpretation as to my other argument, that reconciliation is restricted to modification of existing law, and therefore it can’t be used on the healthcare bill unless and until the passed bill is presented to, and signed by, the President?
I'm not entirely foreclosing the idea that there are significant Constitutional problems with the so-called "deeming" rule, especially if that House rule is predicated upon the Senate doing something, and not the House. I think that clearly violates the Constitutional principle of bicameralism.
Be that as it may, let's for a moment stipulate that the deeming rule is plainly unconstitutional, for whatever reason. Recent precedent doesn't bode well for such a challenge to be heard by the Court. Public Citizen v US District Court for DC, a 2005 case that was brought in a challenge to Republican use of the same tactic, was dismissed on the basis that it violated (amongst other things) the Political Question Doctrine. You may have already read, that ironically, Slaughter, Waxman and Pelosi all submitted amicus briefs supporting Public Citizen, but were rebuked by the DC District court, and that decision was affirmed in DC Circuit.
The question of this rule's Constitutionality becomes, as a practical matter, moot, because the Judiciary is unlikely to entertain such a challenge.
Of course, that doesn't mean that other challenges, not based on the process of passage, but on the substance of the bill itself, won't be heard. Clearly they will, and many of those challenges I am sure are likely to prevail in Court.