Skip to comments.Unrepealable? (DeMint questions about rules changes in bill requiring 2/3 vote and senate adjourns)
Posted on 12/22/2009 8:56:56 AM PST by cornelis
Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) has thumbed through Harry Reid's manager's amendment and discovered some "particularly troubling" rule-change provisions, especially with regards to the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which he finds could be unrepealable:
The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, its a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can redefine them. Thank you. and I do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This sets up a complete dictatorship by our government. It must be illegal according to our Constitution. Each State needs to file suit in Superior Court and do it now before a vote is taken.
I’d ride this ship all the way down Reid’s throat ever chance I got on the Senate floor or before a camera.
Basically, the Democrats have conveniened a constitutional convention where only THEY get to vote. It is illegal to bind future legislative bodies.
Textbooks used to call this tyranny.
Reid was counting every minute to try to squeeze in the minimum required debate time after invoking cloture to get to the vote on Christmas Eve. Did this 11.5 hour adjournment screw up that time, or it the time when the Senate isn't in session between this adjournment (7:30 last night) until 7am today included in the post-cloture debate time?
Can we mobilize a huge team of conservative lawyers to file suit against these thugs (US Congress) as a group and individually?
particularly troubling” rule-change provisions,
These people are going to use rules towards us because they know we follow them.
I’m going to re-watch and read this for a full understanding. It seems that we actually have bona-fide tyrants in the Senate.
This makes the Republicans, Disidente Juan McCain in particular, look like the boobs they are for always ceding power when they get it. They play nice when they should be hard as steel.
When the Democrats get in power they play for keeps.
This won`t make it to the USSC, and even if it did the courts are so enraptured with judicial activism they`ll find in favor of the US govt.
Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
If this travesty is unrepealable, then there is only one action to take.
and it seems there is NOTHING we can do
MSM will not report on the tyranny being brought down on us
It's not illegal, you just can't do it. Future Congress can always do whatever they want, including modifying any provision that requires a supermajority.
Repeal the Congress.
not clear on how anything can be “unrepealable” that is set by a vote.
wont a future vote just undo it?
So far DeMint is the only Senator I respect.
Of course there is no such thing as irreversible. They cannot bind future Congresses.
If Congress makes this mess future Congresses can undo it especially if liberal Democrats are banned from our shores. Congress in passing this has just made legal in the US what Dr. Mengele was doing at Auschwitz...determining at whim who will live and who will die.
Did you watch DeMint?
especially after that dirtbag McConnel did his best trent lott impesonation in responding to Reid’s “can’t we just get along” He is all pal’s with reid all of a sudden. Did his best to give Reid a Lewinski in the senate chamber.
Makes me want to puke.. but a RINO is a RINO and we will keep getting more of the same until we get rid of all these little “r” dirtbags
See tag line.
Heh Claire, is it time YET?
Senator DeMint - take this bill down, either as it stands or take it to the SCOTUS, and the 2012 GOP nomination is yours if you want it...
The Republicans’ “my dear friend so-and-so” needs to stop, too. Hey, if you guys want a “friend,” get a dog. The current party in power is not your friend! I guess the Repubs are afraid of not being invited to all the right cocktail parties. Most of them haven’t learned the life lesson that it really is better to be respected—and, dare I say, feared—than smarmily loved and popular.
I agree. That nonsense about not descending to the level of Democrats and remaining “above the fray” has resulted in constant losses to the Democrats.
I am thouroughly disgusted with the Republican Party. It is going to go the way of the Torys and other extinct political Parties.
If this bill includes a senate rules change (which it does), it would require a two thirds vote to pass. They’d never get it if the Republicans hold together.
Unless Jim DeMint IMMEDIATELY leaves the GOP and joins my Third Party, he’s a rotten, stinkin’ RINO!!!1!1!!
and we should act before odumbo gets his new federal troops in place. he signed the order for it in late spring.
been trying to get hold of McConnell’s office to tell him to grow a pair and stand up for the people instead of playing nice with Reid. Lines are busy - email contact form is not working. Did get a fax to go through. Slam his damn office with faxes if need be - don’t let him get away with this “rodney king” impersonation.
Vote third party because bug > windshield.
uh...... did you hear the mealy-mouthed Mitch McConnell... the GOP is not going to do anything, they are a bunch of spaghetti-spine wimps.
Unbelievable. I have never seen such tyranny in our legislative process.
Yes, but with a two-thirds majority. The Dems haven’t been below one-third in this or the past century.
I meet people like that chair (Sen. Merkley) more and more— teacher, realtors, bankers, contractors, the list goes on. We have a disease that is growing.
“The bill on its face is unconstitutional regardless of the content since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.”
I suspect it hurts us to take absurd positions like this. The bill may be unconstitutional; but if so, it is not because “Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.” There are likely equal protection problems (the Nelson payoff, among others), and some of the bill likely stretches the interstate commerce clause farther than a moderate Supreme Court can accept.
If all the businesses in your area decided they would not do business with Christians, I doubt you would be saying that “Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate” discrimination based on religious principles (which it does not, of course).
By the way, I am convinced that the framers would say that Congress was never intended to have the power to enact Obamacare (or Social Security, for that matter). But, arguing for a Jeffersonian “strict interpretation” today is about as absurd as arguing that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment should not ban ear cropping or branding.
The point is if this bill contains a rules change it would require a two/thirds vote to pass it. They don’t have a two thirds majority.
I like Jim, He’s a Conservative guy
This whole thing is such a disaster.
But 0bama, as a “Constitutional” lawyer, is rewriting the script. Will anyone challenge these nincompoops? Anyone?
There is only one recourse to tyrants
A bit confusing...but if 67 votes are necessary and this stands up as constitutional (What say you Mr. Kennedy?) Then when will the Repubs have 67 votes? The word never comes to mind. To many entitlement $hores along with their supporters in the Schools brain washing every generation.
How can a Senate rule be included in legislation? Does a President then ahave veto power over the rule? Does the House get to re-negotiate the rule in Congress? Can the House refuse to accept the rule?
What a friggin’ mess these Democrats are.
What’s good for the GOP is that the independent middle is particularly sensitive to procedural chicanery and hate it. The Dems’ steadfast opposition to transparency is going to be worth a pocketful of Congressional seats all by itself, even without the massive debt and other issues.
Democrats would trample their own mothers, spouses and children to get what they want.
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.