Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill (with Video)

Weekly Standard ^ | 12/21/09 | John McCormick

[Daisyjane69]

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medical Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

[tsomer]

Congressman

Any competent and honest federal court should strike the no-amendment clause itself as beyond the power of Congress.

Could a court action on this point lead to an injunction against implementation of the entire bill?

[Southbound]

John, as an aside thought, could the threat of a great number of ethics complaints (a la Sarah Palin) against these corrupt bozos maybe change their minds about passing something like this monstrosity? Just askin......

[Boiler Plate]

True, however if the anount to be collected becomes $0, the IRS may find it not worth their while.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[Rodebrecht]

[MozarkDawg]

As explained to me by an MOC almost two decades ago, no Congress may bind another Congress, they cannot pass something in today’s session that either mandates a future session to some kind of legislation, ie, cuts in Medicare benefits to make the numbers add up in this thing, or disallows repealing of passed legislation.

[MozarkDawg]

Our Congress is a real-life version of Calvinball

Brilliant -- I wish I'd thought of that my own self.

[MozarkDawg]

Manigault v. Springs - “As this is not a constitutional provision, but a general law enacted by the legislature, it may be repealed, amended, or disregarded by the legislature which enacted it."

The principle of this citation is the very reason I said that de-funding ACORN was not punishment, a bill of attainder as was proffered ... I said that Congress created a program, funded it, a subsequent Congress may decide to de-fund it, for any reason or for no reason. To assess damages to ACORN, in my mind, means that any time Congress sets up some program, it will be determined to exist in perpetuity. There is no Constitutional provision for the existence of ACORN (or similar), they are not entitled to funds from the government largess.

[Larousse2]

PING! Is our military ever going to grow a pair and do something?

[Larousse2]

"Any competent and honest federal court should strike the no-amendment clause itself as beyond the power of Congress. There are ample statements from the Framers, and in the Federalist, that no Congress has the power to restrain future Congresses. Only the Constitution has the power to do that."

Where do we locate 'any competent and honest federal court'?

[neverdem]

bttt

[Pining_4_TX]

I would prefer DeMint/Coburn, but I may not be objective since I live in Okieland. ;-)

[Political Junkie Too]

I will bet 1 million bucks that this health care fiasco results in racial tensions in future years.

This morning on the KSFO Morning Show, Lee Rodgers asked if the provision adding a 10% tax on tanning salons was, dare he say it, racist?

Rodgers said that the President himself has a "permanent tan" and that he was just pointing out the obvious that a certain segment of the population that wants to get rid of a "winter pallor" would be hardest hit by this new tax.

-PJ