If this isn't true, I apologize, but if it is, it's dynamite! You folks that have access to the Bill, (which Bill is it now?), please clarify if this is true. Thank you ahead of time. . .
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: Art in Idaho
This is old news and Harry is wasting his breath. It is the kind of language that the SCOTUS has grounds to overturn.
2 posted on
03/14/2010 9:17:55 PM PDT by
DarthVader
(Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
To: Art in Idaho
Massive civil disobedience coming. Screw Harry Reid. The people can throw off the yoke of tyranny.
3 posted on
03/14/2010 9:19:26 PM PDT by
beethovenfan
(If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
To: Art in Idaho
A current Congress cannot pass a law that infringes a future Congress period.
4 posted on
03/14/2010 9:19:48 PM PDT by
heshtesh
(ueer)
To: Art in Idaho
I don’t know what the SCOTUS will do .....but I think their will be many challanges on the constitutionality of this Bill.......
Dems are going to pay a heavy price for this also passing the bill the way they did......
To: Art in Idaho
I was reading today that David Axlerod’s mother wrote for a left-wing communist newspaper during WWII.
These folks are scary.
6 posted on
03/14/2010 9:22:09 PM PDT by
boycott
(CAL)
To: Art in Idaho
From what I understand ... no congress can stipulate to, or encumber another congress through legislation.. now that's from my high school/college years some 40 years ago...
7 posted on
03/14/2010 9:22:10 PM PDT by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: Art in Idaho
8 posted on
03/14/2010 9:23:12 PM PDT by
Jet Jaguar
(*)
To: Art in Idaho
9 posted on
03/14/2010 9:24:32 PM PDT by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: Art in Idaho
He’s just blowing smoke up his own a##.
He can’t do anything that will bind a future congress from acting.
10 posted on
03/14/2010 9:24:38 PM PDT by
Kozak
(USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
To: Art in Idaho
All bills passed carry potential unintended consequences which, down the road, could prove detrimental and injurious to the nation. For this reason, a bill cannot be passed "in cement," fixed and un-amendable or un-repealable.
I'm truly glad the ass-chimp, Bukkaki O'Bunga and his butt-suck, Harry Reid, are such zealots that they actually included this language. Because now it can (and will) be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Tying the hands of future Congresses in this manner is un-Constitutional in the extreme. They only put this in there because they know how the country is going to revolt when it passes.
Megalomaniacal assh*les, they should all be whipped within and inch, the filthy Kommie dirtbags.
IMHO.
;-/
11 posted on
03/14/2010 9:24:45 PM PDT by
Gargantua
(DON'T TREAD ON US.)
To: Art in Idaho
I think it is true. I read the senate bill a few months ago and remember seeing it there.
Unlike its passage where the VP will have to come in and overrule the parlamentarian over and over as each point of order is raised in reconciliation and having it blazing across the TV sets of an American public that is deeply opposed to the bill, I doubt whoever is VP in 2013 will suffer backlash from doing it on its repeal.
Rules are rules, but they can be overridden. This bit of chicanery inserted by Reid just makes it more of challenge, but not impossible.
13 posted on
03/14/2010 9:26:28 PM PDT by
dajeeps
To: Art in Idaho
Where’s that damn speed-reader when you need him?
14 posted on
03/14/2010 9:27:24 PM PDT by
umgud
(I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
To: Art in Idaho
This is in the bill so the CBO will make favorable assumptions about how much the bill will cost. If the true cost were known -— ouch. The dems are gaming the CBO. Garbage in, garbage out.
15 posted on
03/14/2010 9:28:29 PM PDT by
mlocher
(USA is a sovereign nation)
To: holdonnow
17 posted on
03/14/2010 9:29:55 PM PDT by
nutmeg
("We have to pass the bill first so you can find out what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi, March 2010)
To: Art in Idaho
Anything can be repealed regardless what dingy says ... No Congress can bind another.
Did you know that in order to be a native born citizen, both your father and mother must be native born citizens. I don’t think that includes Kenyan fathers.
19 posted on
03/14/2010 9:33:25 PM PDT by
Tarpon
( ...Rude crude socialist Obama depends on ignorance to force his will on people)
To: Art in Idaho
I know this, but it shows that the communists (yes, communists) are in power.
20 posted on
03/14/2010 9:33:41 PM PDT by
FormerACLUmember
(The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Menken.)
To: Art in Idaho
It's called an entrenchment provision. It's been included in plenty of previous pieces of legislation. And, it's NEVER been successful in entrenching anything. Once the GOP gets back in control of the Congress - presuming they have a compliant President to work with - they can undo ANYTHING that this Congress does, as a purely legal matter.
To: Art in Idaho
Anytime I hear the words, “Got an email from a friend,” I’m very skeptical.
To: Art in Idaho
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.
25 posted on
03/14/2010 9:41:41 PM PDT by
Dick Bachert
(THE 2010 ELECTIONS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT IN OUR LIFETIMES! BE THERE!!!)
To: Art in Idaho
It may very well be true, but it is obvious rubbish. The bill's wording does not make it effective. What can be done by Congress, can be undone. Perhaps not easily, but such a prohibition against this is obviously unworkable. No legislative act is permanent. They are all rescind-able or amendable in the fullness of time. To state otherwise merely confirms the presumptuousness of those who may have made such a statement. The legislative branch may do as they wish, and the judicial branch may choose not to consider their “procedures”, but neither will they block an act that erases such a foolish legislative act.
To attempt otherwise will leave the country ungovernable, and Obama knows it.
27 posted on
03/14/2010 9:42:48 PM PDT by
Habibi
("It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." - William of Occam)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson