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
Its not according to the Senate rules or Constitution. I don’t think it means legally.
But like Rush said, its fascism.
Seems to me that clause, itself, would be unconstitutional.
Is there precedent for this?
... complete violation of democratic principles, rights and process.
the arrogant liars.... are hard at it foisting on America what she does not want.
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.
... complete violation of democratic principles, rights and process.
the arrogant liars.... are hard at it foisting on America what she does not want.
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?”
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
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.
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?
yet another unconstitutional aspect of an unconstitutional effort
yet another unconstitutional aspect of an unconstitutional effort
yet another unconstitutional aspect of an unconstitutional effort
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
—Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1778
The attacks against our Constitution just keep on coming.
God save us.
They can try this sh*t, but when it is overturned by 51% who are they going to complain to, the Supreme Court? This just proves Dems are dangerously delusional. When a kid crashes your car, the first thing you do it take the keys away from them. 2010 can’t come soon enough.