The problem is, it is very difficult to stand against this even though it's an order of magnitude higher when the other side is using the same tools. It doesn't matter if their motives were pure or not. The procedure is wrong or it isn't. How it is used is a technicality.
I am very new to this site so please forgive me if I offend anyone.
Mtnbkr's point is *exactly* correct. The Progressive Republicans used this technique to move things through Congress faster than they otherwise would have. Or, they used it to move through unpopular procedural motions without putting their name on the vote. Now the Progressive Democrats are doing the same thing, just in a much larger measure. It IS the same game and it is unconstitutional, no matter who is doing it.
The Founders structured the House and Senate to be intentionally inefficient. They understood that law passed quickly are usually bad.
Somewhere the message got lost. In December 1917 the Federal government decided to enact Prohibition, but Congress (correctly) assumed they needed a Constitutional Amendment to enact such sweeping legislation at the Federal level. (Fortunately, by 1933 they discovered the errror of their ways and repealed it. - so I can legally drink this REALLY awsome micro-brew that Mrs. Inor bough for me as I write this.) Ask yourselves, since 1917 how many new Federal agencies and new Federal departments have been created solely through statute without even a consideration of the Constitution?
Now it surprises us that our current generation of congresscritters should not even follow the rules for statute law? Peebo (my name for the current POTUS), Pelosi, and Reid are SOBs to be sure, but they are just the end-game started by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It is not the Democrats that I fear. It is the Progressives - in both parties.
IMO any law, proposed by either party, must be measured against, and follow the rules laid plain in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. These are the documents given to us by the Founders describing how our Republic is to be structured and how it is to function. They were not written to be understood only by scholars and other "pointy heads". They were written to be understood by common folks - guys like you and me. If our betters in the political class need to change the meanings of words to make their point, it is almost certainly unconstitutional. I mean, what part of "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is ambigous?
Sorry to get on my soapbox, but this very near and dear to my heart. When judging any law, read the founding documents; if any law does not pass muster with both the language and the "spirit" of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers it is a BAD law.
Until I write again, keep your Bible close and your powder dry.
-I-