To: onyx
This is legal bullsh*t. Any future Congress which wants to change any provision in this monster bill (assuming it passes) only needs to amend the no-amendment clause first. Having done that, it can amend anything else.
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.
Congressman Billybob
Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"
"Ben Franklin: On Science"
To: Congressman Billybob
Thank you sir!
Merry CHRISTmas.
59 posted on
12/22/2009 6:47:51 AM PST by
onyx
To: Congressman Billybob
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?
61 posted on
12/22/2009 6:57:12 AM PST by
tsomer
To: Congressman Billybob
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......
62 posted on
12/22/2009 6:59:57 AM PST by
Southbound
("A liar in public life is worse than a full-paid-up Communist, and I don't care who he is." - HST)
To: Congressman Billybob
"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'?
70 posted on
12/22/2009 9:33:37 AM PST by
Larousse2
("Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preserva)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson