Replies

"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."

There have been numerous court cases, not concerning rule changes, but the attempt of one congress to bind a future congress. That's what this is attempting to do by saying that no future congress can repeal the medical advisory board. That is unconstitutional. If they can do that,then there would be no need for future congresses as one congress can pass all the laws with this in it. Then you have a true dictatorship.

In other threads, these are the court cases that I've discovered so far....

Fletcher v. Peck - “The principle asserted is, that one legislature is competent to repeal any act which a former legislature was competent to pass; and that one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature.

The correctness of this principle, so far as respects general legislation, can never be controverted.

United States v. Winstar - “Hence, although we have recognized that “a general law . . . may be repealed, amended or disregarded by the legislature which enacted it,” and “is not binding upon any subsequent legislature,” Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 487 (1905), [n.19] on this side of the Atlantic the principle has always lived in some tension with the constitutionally created potential for a legislature, under certain circumstances, to place effective limits on its successors, or to authorize executive action resulting in such a limitation.”

Manigault v. Springs - “As this is not a constitutional provision, but a general law enacted by the legislature, it may be repealed, amended, or disregarded by the legislature which enacted it. This law was doubtless intended as a guide to persons desiring to petition the legislature for special privileges, and it would be a good answer to any petition for the granting of such privileges that the required notice had not been given; but it is not binding upon any subsequent legislature, nor does a noncompliance with it impair or nullify the provisions of an act passed without the requirement of such notice.”