Reconciliation is when you kiss and make up. My bumper sticker says it all:
"Bipartisanship: I'll hug yer elephant when you kiss my ass."
What has been called the "Nuclear Option" is actually the "Constitutional Option" and it is probably the best way to get a "Public Option".
Before getting into the technical details it is probably advisable to consider whether the 60 vote minimum in the Senate is a plus or a minus regarding the common people of the nation and the majority and even the Democratic Party.
It should be understood that the number of cows and pigs represented by what was the Baucus "Gang of Six" in the Senate is greater than the number of people. The total population of those Senator's states is less than the population of Los Angeles County, California. And if I were a corporation shopping for a Senator I'd certainly pick a state where the cows outnumber the people because the cows don't send in any campaign contributions. Baucus has enough paper campaign money to burn a wet mule.
Time to understand that Max Baucus is a Republican and so too is Joe LIEberman and thus we have no 60 vote majority no matter what we do and we never did and will not have such a thing until the Democratoc caucus is around 65. But on the bigger canvas I don't think that matters. We need a Senate that is less controlled by the lobby or by any lock step national party of idiots. It might be possible to repeal the 17th amendment, but we need health care reform now.
The blatant example of "cloture" failure is named "Alito", who the supposed Democrats were unable to block. The other side of the coin is illustrated by Republican obstructionism over the last 3 years, the ability of the Republicans to destroy the recovery bill (messing with the AMT and handing money to the rich again), and now the health care bill. The "minority" is that portion of the citizenry who are rich and conservative. The elimination of the 60 vote rule or even another reduction in that number to 55 (it was 67 before 1975) is a good thing for democracy and for the common people because only the lock step automaton Republican Cow and Pig party can make practical use of such a rule.
NOW FOR THE DETAILS:
Constitutional super majorities
The original Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of either the House, the Senate, or both in five situations. They include: (1) overriding presidential vetoes, Article I, section 7, clause 2; (2) removing federal officers through impeachment proceedings with conviction by two-thirds vote of the Senate, Article I, section 3, clause 6; (3) ratifying treaties by two-thirds vote of the Senate, Article II, section 2, clause 2; (4) expelling members from the House or Senate, Article I, section 5, clause 2; and (5) proposing constitutional amendments, Article V. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, disallowed anyone who engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" from holding any civil or military office unless each house removed this disability by a two-thirds vote. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, addresses the issues of presidential succession and inability. In the case of an Acting President, the House and Senate, by a two-thirds vote of each chamber, may determine that "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
We note that the last two are by Constitutional amendment. The clear import of these provisions is that Congressional action, in both the House and Senate, is to be by simple majority, except in the seven instances specifically listed in the Constitution. After all, according to the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or literally "inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others," the enumeration of one thing in the Constitution implies the exclusion of another.
A countervailing argument is Article I, section 5, which says, "Each chamber may determine the Rules of Its Proceedings".
*******HOWEVER********
It has long been a principle of Anglo-American constitutional law that a previous legislature cannot bind a subsequent legislature. Indeed, the maxim dates all the way back to Sir William Blackstone, who cited Cicero in his Commentaries on the Laws of England for the proposition that "Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not. ... Because the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if its ordinances could bind the present parliament." The U.S. Supreme Court, likewise, has held that legislative entrenchment constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of power in a long line of cases dating all the way back to the mid-19th Century. Specifically, the High Court has ruled that "[e]very succeeding Legislature possesses the same jurisdiction and power ... as its predecessors. The latter must have the same power of repeal and modification which the former had of enactment, neither more nor less. All occupy, in this respect, a footing of perfect equality. ... A different result is fraught with evil." Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548, 559 (1880). Thus, it is far from surprising that, according to the Supreme Court, "the will of a particular Congress ... does not impose itself upon those that follow in succeeding years." Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315, 318 (1932).
The point being that the Senate cannot constitute itself a continuing body for the purpose of binding latter congressional sessions. The Senate may informally conduct its business respecting the rules laid down by the previous legislature until any member raises a point of order concerning the informality. For the purpose of rule making that binds the current legislative session such rule making or adoption must be accomplished by simple majority according to the Constitutionally implied prohibition against entrenchment. That is what my copy of the Constitution says.
Therefore: Every Senator is failing in that Senator's oath if the Senator does not raise a point of order concerning the rules. And the Senate is conducting its business unconstitutionally if the rules are not properly sanctified for the current session. And the rules must be adopted on an up and down vote because until that is done THERE AIN'T NO RULES. The House does this at the beginning of each session. The Democratic Senators nor the Democratic party should be excused for allowing the minority Republicans to continue to obstruct the proceedings of the Senate.
The trashing of the cloture rule is not going to harm democracy in the least.