Obama Tries to Sneak Around SupermajorityRule by Using Reconciliation

Those that say there is no foundation in the Constitution for requiring a "super-majority" are simply ignorant! Super-majorities are not a new idea, they appear in the Constitution with two-thirds of both Houses to propose a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of both Houses to over-ride a president's veto, two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty and three-quarters of state legislatures to adopt a constitutional amendment.

Until 1917 unlimited debate was allowed in the Senate. In 1917, the Senate adopted Rule 22 which stated that two-thirds of theSenate ("SUPERMAJORITY" ) could end a debate ("filibuster"). In 1975 Senate Rule 22 was changed to a three-fifths "supermajority" (sixty votes) could end a debate ("filibuster").

The right for the Senate to create such a rule traces back to the Constitution, Article 1, section 5 which states “Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings.” It was under this constitutional clause that the Senate imposed on itself a "super-majority" rule to end debate. The Senate also set the rule  that a majority of 1 is all that is needed to "RECONCILE" budget matters.  Obama's modified 2700 page Senate Health Care Reform bill, ("ObamaCare"), is far far from a simple budget matter, it establishes many mandates, agencies, procedures, in fact, an entire national structure for health care involving the government, insurance companies, medical professionals and patients, most of which has nothing to do with approving a budget. So, Obama is trying to ram through ObamaCare by steamrolling over the established constitutional Senate rules and lying that "reconciliation" can be used.

Barack Obama 4/25/05 said: “The President (Bush at the time) hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED".

The Hypocrisy of Obama!

The Framers of the Constitution also recognized the value of super-majority votes. James Madison wrote (in The Federalist papers) that super-majority votes serve as a “shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures.”