Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OMG!! Senate Obamacare Provision Says Parts of It CAN'T BE CANCELED Without "Super Majority"
US Senate/Jim DeMint/Hot Air/The Lid ^ | 12/21/09 | The Lid

Posted on 12/22/2009 10:07:59 AM PST by Shellybenoit

Many opponents of Obamacare have been saying it doesn't matter if it gets passed, if the GOP takes over in 2010 they will repeal it. Sorry that will not be possible. The bill making its way through the Senate includes a clause that requires a two-thirds vote to amend or repeal certain sections of the bill. Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid's amendment (page 1020)

(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference2 report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of sub4section (c)(2).

(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics
KEYWORDS: america2point0; dictatorship; dirtypolitics; obamacare; obamunism; senate; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2009 10:08:01 AM PST by Shellybenoit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Stocking Stuffers: Payoffs, Kickbacks, Sweetheart Deals Abound in Gov’t Health Care
(ALL seniors are not created equal!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2413108/posts


2 posted on 12/22/2009 10:09:40 AM PST by AuntB (If Al Qaeda grew drugs & burned our forests instead of armed Mexican Cartels would anyone notice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Its not according to the Senate rules or Constitution. I don’t think it means legally.

But like Rush said, its fascism.


3 posted on 12/22/2009 10:10:50 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Seems to me that clause, itself, would be unconstitutional.


4 posted on 12/22/2009 10:11:00 AM PST by Egon (The difference between Theory and Practice: In Theory, there is no difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Is there precedent for this?


5 posted on 12/22/2009 10:11:06 AM PST by hsrazorback1 (Seek truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

... complete violation of democratic principles, rights and process.

the arrogant liars.... are hard at it foisting on America what she does not want.


6 posted on 12/22/2009 10:12:26 AM PST by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Childishness. “I CALLED it that I’m left fielder. And I now CALL IT that you can never change that, either. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.”

In this context, of course — “I CALLED IT that ReidCare is forever” — it’s not funny.


7 posted on 12/22/2009 10:12:26 AM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

... complete violation of democratic principles, rights and process.

the arrogant liars.... are hard at it foisting on America what she does not want.


8 posted on 12/22/2009 10:12:41 AM PST by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Goodbye America. The Fascist National Socialist Democrats are in charge.


9 posted on 12/22/2009 10:15:30 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Question authority!Who is the University of East Anglia to drive the 'Global Climate Change' agenda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Reid to McConnell: “Don’t worry Mitch, we’ll just take it out during reconciliation.”

McConnell to Reid: “Okay, then. As long as you promise you’ll take it out, right?”


10 posted on 12/22/2009 10:15:47 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

Senator DeMint responded:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

http://normanhooben.blogspot.com/2009/12/section-3403-is-this-death-of-america.html

11 posted on 12/22/2009 10:15:56 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

We are on the way to dictatorship. Isn’t it fitting a strange little drip like Harry Reid would bring it about?

Republicans better focus on the real issues or else they deserve to e replaced by a third party. A party of freedom.


12 posted on 12/22/2009 10:16:50 AM PST by Williams (It's the policies, stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

13 posted on 12/22/2009 10:17:10 AM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Egon
Seems to me that clause, itself, would be unconstitutional.

Democrats....don't need no stinking Constitution.....

14 posted on 12/22/2009 10:18:07 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

Waiting for the Supremes to rule on this.

Forcing US Citizens to purchase Gov’t goods? Based upon what Constitutional backing?

Stating that a law cannot be repealed? Based upon what ruling?


15 posted on 12/22/2009 10:18:46 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

yet another unconstitutional aspect of an unconstitutional effort


16 posted on 12/22/2009 10:22:01 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

yet another unconstitutional aspect of an unconstitutional effort


17 posted on 12/22/2009 10:22:13 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shellybenoit

yet another unconstitutional aspect of an unconstitutional effort


18 posted on 12/22/2009 10:22:17 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

19 posted on 12/22/2009 10:22:17 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

tar and feathers would be a good start


20 posted on 12/22/2009 10:23:31 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson