Posted on 03/14/2010 9:14:24 PM PDT by Art in Idaho
I have to say I received this email from a friend I trust. I have not officially verified the claims in the said bill, but thought it worthwhile to put it out there so we could research it.
The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light.
Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation!
Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". . it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!
Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending."
That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people.
And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.
No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept.
True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors.
The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate "procedures." Why is that significant?
Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate's standing rules have required approval by two-thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendment received.
Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is?
DON'T SIT BY AND LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE DARK!!! FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!
Absolutely not. Typical Democrat crap intended to baffle the befuddled.
Anytime I hear the words, “Got an email from a friend,” I’m very skeptical.
Not to worry. This is a form or prior restraint that the SCOTUS will kill almost instantly the moment someone alleging standing attempts to come forward with a suit against a new Congress when it repeals this BS.
A legislative body can’t dictate what a future body can do with a particular piece of legislation.
If this abomination passes and we elect a few hundred AMERICANS to congress in Novemner, it is as dead as Kelsey’s nuts on St. Patty’s Day.
OldDeckHand, Thanks for the info. Maybe can sleep now. . Man, this is going to be some week. . .
To attempt otherwise will leave the country ungovernable, and Obama knows it.
This particular wording is not included in the reconciliation bill posted this evening. There are no clauses which reference the “Senate” or “repeal” which could be construed as an attempt to prevent further repeal of the provisions of this law.
Folks, lets weaken our position citing bogeymen that don’t exist!
Hey Guys,
Don’t worry, Bill O’Reilly and the Factor are looking into this...he’ll tell us when it’s time to worry! Remember, they’re looking out for us! /sarc
I am too - usually, but when I got this with the page 1000 and Section 3043, I figured someone of us that has access could check it out. Sorry if it's a false alarm.
It was this part that got me: "In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!"
Thank you the_Watchman for checking this. Again sorry all for the shakeup. I didn't know the bill was available until just now, otherwise would have checked it myself. My bad. . .
Thank God someone is reading this thing. These dems cannot be trusted, that’s for sure.
It's unconstitutional. How many more times do we have to do this?
Article VI Section 2
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This means that the laws that the Congress pass are still subserviant to the Constitution. The Constitution says in Article I Section 5 Clause 2:
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.
That means that each Congress (this is the 111th Congress; after the 2010 elections we will have the 112th Congress) can make its own rules. The 111th Congress cannot pass language that binds the 112th (or any future) Congress, because EACH Congress can make its own rules.
Furthermore, since the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and since Congress is established UNDER the Constitution, it laws are subserviant to the Constitution. That clarifies that a Congress cannot bind a future Congress because the binding language is in laws passed by Congress, but the (Supreme Law) Constitution says that each Congress can make its own rules. The Constitution nullifies the Congress' attempt to bind future Congresses.
Inclusion of language like this is a poison pill that will doom the bill to being overturned as unconstitutional by a Supreme Court that is honest.
-PJ
I don’t know if this is true or not, but if it is true it is not possible. The present Congress can not limit a future Congress’ ability to repeal a bill. That’s just not possible.
You are correct. There is one difference however. Madoff had to provide propaganda to appease all of his investors. The liberals only need enough propaganda to appease 51% of the voters.
Stay solvent, my friend!
bttt
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.