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
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.
It’s bull. The only document that can’t be changed is the Constitution, except by amendment.
This entire bill can be torpedo’d by any future Senate and Congress.
Well I guess if they can pass it without a vote, we can repeal it without a vote no matter what their silly paper says.
Time to get that damn birth certificate issue nailed down and get this fraud out of the WH and wipe out any and all dictates and laws he has signed. Arrest this fraud, his wife, mother in law, and all his staff and jail them.
As others have correctly stated, no present Congress can encumber a future Congress.
That is, in fact, exactly what makes this bill so dangerous, from a fiscal standpoint.
When we get to 2018, or whenever, exactly WHO is going to be around to pass the Cadillac taxes to fund this train wreck? Our legal system doesn’t permit taxes to be passed in 2010, to take effect in 2018.
What a bunch of asshats we have in charge, I swear.
If they can pass this bill by nefarious means it can be repealed in the same way. After all, why should the American people hold themselves to a higher standard than the commies in Congress?
Screw that little weasel tyrant Reid.
The whole bill is unconstitutional anyway, and they are intending to “deem” it into law without voting on it. Moreover, the whole section or law can always be repealed, regardless of what it says.
You are right to be alarmed but we knew this. It nullifies future elections, in essence, so it is blatantly unconstitutional.