The Decision that's going to determine CIR

A lot of people like to complain about Obama not delivering on reform. And yet what they should be looking at what's happening in Congress. Here's a prime example:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...entatives.html

So basically. Right now the House has 235 or so Republicans and 200 or so Democrats. You can't assume each Dem will be in favor of CIR, let's say they re going to provide 180 votes for it. So you need 40 Republican votes or so for majority.

What principle Boehner adopts for supporting legislation will be pivotal in the chances of CIR passage.

1. If Boehner decides that in order to pass legislation, he needs 218 Republican votes -like he did during last congress- then it's impossible for CIR to pass, because there are no 218 Republican votes for it.

2. If Boehner decides to adopt the Hastert rule -Hastert being speaker till 2006-, then there would have to be 118 Republican votes in favor of CIR.

Not impossible. But a tall order.

3. If Boehner decides to drop all those rules and just work to find enough congressmen to vote for any bill, then CIR can happen, because 40 Republicans can probably be found.

However, it is unlikely Boehner would do that, because if he were to pass bills which the majority of Republicans didn't approve, he would run the danger of getting a challenge from Cantor and losing his Speakership.

In conclusion:

While one cannot preclude the possibility of Boehner ignoring his caucus and passing CIR with mostly Democratic votes, the likeliest most favorite scenario is Bohner adopting the majority within the majority rule trying to get 118 votes from the Republican caucus.

That's rather unlikely and bear in mind that in order for him to do that, any bill coming out of the house would have to be more restrictionist -which in turn might drive Democrats away and sink the bill in another way.

That's why passing CIR is difficult, that's why passing laws in the US is difficult in general.

I don't think that is what the 'majority of the majority' means as the article clearly states:
This is why CIR failed way back then and also don't go by everything that you read to define Boehner.The 113th hasn't been sworn in and we don't know how the current Speaker will formulate rules for legislation and it has been confirmed the votes are their for him to be Speaker.

I think the two most important individuals for CIR on the GOP side will be Cornyn in the Senate and Boehner in the House.They are not only Republicans but seasoned politicians so let's see where it goes.

Pass DA first then deal with CIR, I don't want to see another 2007. It will ruined DA chances by attaching elephant CIR to it.

I don't understand why you corrected me.

The Hastert Rule for a "majority of a majority" means that for the Republicans to support a specific bill, they need a majority of their caucus to vote for that bill.

After that, it's self evident that the bill needs the support of whole house majority to pass; 218 votes.

BUT. If let's say, Boehner adopts the "majority of the majority rule" and only 60 Republicans support CIR -which is less than the majority within the Republican caucus, then Boehner, as is his power as the speaker- will not move the bill to a vote, that's what the rule means. Btw, during last congress, Boehner didn't even go by that rule. He required 218 Republicans to support a bill in order to allow a vote on the floor. That's why a compromise on the debt ceiling didn't pass.

Other than that, I did not make any assumptions. I presented the various scenarios and I assigned probabilities in all of them based on what I think is solid logic.

People need to see things as they are, not as they want them to be. There's still a chance the bill passes, but it's not a shoo in.

Thanks for sharing this, I find it very informative.

Well, I hate to say this, but maybe Right Fringe House Republicans need to take a thorough beating in the next election for being the obstructionists that they are, before DA/CIR becomes a possibility.

CIR/DA together.

Informative post. Thanks

The filibusterer is a f 'in sack of chicken-shit.
For cowards that like to hijack the popular vote, and wine and wine and wine,
like in 2010.

Can someone please explain me the constitutionality of the filibuster or the Hastert Rule?

The constitution requires at least 51 votes to pass a bill in the senate.Clearly, the filibuster is unconstitutional, because it hinders passage of a bill that has 51 to 59 votes, which is enough to pass the bill as required by the constitution.

The constitution requires at least 218 votes for a bill to pass in the House, so clearly the Hastert rule is unconstitutional because it hinders passage of any bill that does have those votes by disproportionating the vote of members.

I understand that the constitutions gives each chamber the right to set their own rules, but if those rules ultimately go against the rules set by the constitutional, then these chamber rules are unconstitutional as far as I see it.