Replies

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."

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