The Senate has been doing this for over 200 years. They are ALLOWED to amend a bill sent over from the House. They are also allowed to vote on a resolution that’s tantamount to what they will accept ~ then when the bill comes over from the House, to the degree it is different they will amend it in whole or in part to match their own.
They then send their bill (with the stuff they’ll go along with) back to the House and the House treats it as a new bill. It has to go through the house and back to the Senate, and soon.
From time to time they’ve used the reconciliation process to deal with this (where there are minor differences). Where there are large differences this business can go on for many iterations before both houses agree, but it has to ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE, but it can be changed in the Senate.
The House is not required to be IGNANT of what the Senate will agree to.
This Bill ORIGINATED in the Senate, did it not? I don’t think it BEGAN in the House. The Obama Regime took it to the Senate FIRST. That’s Unconstitutional. They are doing it backward.
Now, there may indeed BE “no controlling legal authority.” The Democrats may indeed not have to follow the Constitution in this case (God knows they ignore it, violate it and crap on it in many other cases). BUT, Conservative Constitutionalists shouldn’t let it go unchallenged. They should IMMEDIATELY seek an injunction for relief from the Supreme Court if it is passed/signed into law. Why? IT’S AN OBVIOUS VIOLATION of Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1!
Then, if the SCOTUS fails to uphold the Constitution, well, I have further suggestions for the next move....
I believe one Freeper noted this was voted on LAST WEEK in the House. BTW, whatever the Democrats jigger up if the President hasn't signed it by the time the new Congress convenes in January, I suppose either house could vote for a resolution "deeming" the earlier bills NOT PASSED (kind of a reversal of what the Democrats did with the Obamakkkare bill).