Unrepealable? (DeMint questions about rules changes in bill requiring 2/3 vote and senate adjourns)

NRO ^ | 12/22/09 | Rober Costa

[cornelis]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) has thumbed through Harry Reid's manager's amendment and discovered some "particularly troubling" rule-change provisions, especially with regards to the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which he finds could be unrepealable:

[Red Steel]

Understood. But the way the bill is written, it will take a two-thrids majority to repeal it. They will pass it calling it a procedural change (60 votes to invoke cloture) and when anyone tries to repeal it, they will call it a rule change requiring two thirds vote.

The Rats call it a Senate procedural change at the same time and still make it a general law that effects the rest of the country. It cannot be both making it another unconstitutional clause.

[DesertRhino]

Precisely! National strike, and Tea party to the next level. They FEAR that kind of thing. I think it will energize us for 2010. THAT might be the nation’s last chance.
You know, to be historically accurate,,, a modern version of the original tea party would be to dress up like arab terrorists, then loot a government building, or a senators office, and throw his computers in the bay.

They need to lean to fear us.

[DesertRhino]

if they are combined? Welll,,,Then by default they are assigned the value of the more evil job. He’s no longer a mere “census taker”,,, he would be a government gun confiscator.

An honest census is constitutional. But no, coming in to see guns isnt part of it.

[Jim Robinson]

The rats probably have enough votes to change the rules (the so-called nuclear option that both sides are fearful of exercising), but they would need to do that before this is voted on. The Republicans need to continue objecting at every opportunity. This whole thing is unconstitutional and stinks to high heaven!! It’s tyranny!!

Resist tyranny!!

[DesertRhino]

This is going to be an interesting spring. I think general strikes amight appear,, tax revolts,, and i think the tea parties starting April 15th are going to dwarf last years events.

Then in the fall the communist insurgency will feel our rage. Then we will begin working to get Sarah elected. As much as i would like to see big ears impeached. I would even more love to see him lose to Sarah. It would be good for our nation’s moral health.

[Boucheau]

All this is fine ‘n dandy, we know it’s illegal.

Will gutless Republicans do anything about it?

Nope.

To manly a thing for the current crop.

[cornelis]

I did the same calling Senator McCain’s office. The other night McCain had reminisced about being in the Navy and said “we’re going to fight.” I told them DeMint is actually doing something and it would be good if McCain supported DeMint.

[Track9]

I bet Rahm has already calculated this will be buried by the spin it’s ‘technical minutiae’. I doubt someone like Chris Mathews would have the brain power to appreciate the enormity of this. It worried me sick.

Was that you on Rush a moment ago..

[Jim Robinson]

Not me.

[OneWingedShark]

>Precisely! National [tax] strike, and Tea party to the next level. They FEAR that kind of thing.

There are a few problems with the “tax strike” idea, namely for income taxes. Because the taxes are taken out BEFORE you even touch the money (and thusly before you have any sort of control over it).

That is why the 1040 is called an income-tax return form. It’s so that you can get back monies already taxed that were not supposed to be taxed. (The effect of which being you making a zero-percent interest loan to the government.)

Perhaps the best way around this is to pay your employees in cash-money and “conveniently forget” to keep records. Much like you would when hiring the neighbor-kid to mow your lawn.

>I think it will energize us for 2010. THAT might be the nation’s last chance.

I’m not sure. Given the recent histories of elections it may be that an open and honest election is something of the past. (Consider how many stories of poll workers “finding” a box of ballots there’ve been in the last decade, and the stories of mail-in ballots being “misdirected”/”lost” by the post office until it is too late {think soldiers overseas}, and think of how [little] action has been happening on investigating the allegations of ACORN’s massive multistate voter registration fraud.)

>You know, to be historically accurate... a modern version of the original tea party would be to dress up like arab terrorists, then loot a government building, or a senators office, and throw his computers in the bay.

Now I *like* that idea, DesertRihno.

>They need to lean to fear us.

That is something I think we ALL can agree on in an unreserved fashion.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think you're generally right about the Supreme Court leaving political issues to the Legislative branch to work out. But, I think what makes this different is that the Senate is forcing a rule change on the House, too. That violates Article I Section 5 Clause 3, which gives each chamber the power to make its own rules.

-PJ

[tacticalogic]

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.

Not by any description of the commerce power by the Founders that I've ever read. The "substantial effects" doctrine is an invention of the FDR and the New Deal court. It has no basis in original intent, and is in fact contrary to it.

[Track9]

He was arguing for a tax revolt and I think Rush got a bit flustered by how much sense it made. Anyway... he’s not the one to start this kind of thing.

[Political Junkie Too]

The problem is that SCOTUS may decide a case on the issue that says that it IS not repealable.

They should argue before the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to impose a rule on the House. Article I Section 5 Clause 3 grants each chamber the right to make its own rules.

What happens if the House refuses and decides to pass a bill repealing this? Will the Senate say that they can't? The best that the Senate can do is to vote down the House bill, but they cannot make it illegal for the House to pass the bill.

-PJ

[Man50D]

I'm afraid the Interstate Commerce clause is an enumerated power that does grant Congress the power to do what they are doing.

If our founding fathers intended to grant Congress unlimited powers then there would have been no need for them to list specific powers in Article 1 Section 8 that are granted to Congress. They would have merely written the ICC in Article 1 Section 8, omitting the listing of individual powers. The founding fathers would also not have bothered to write the 10th Amendment and would have not stated the 10th Amendment with the wording "Any powers not delegated to the United State" if they intended to grant Congress unlimited powers.

Our founding fathers most certainly did intend to limit the powers of the federal government as evident in James Madison's Federalist paper #45. To quote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

[itssme]

That damn, weak, soft McConnell and his sniveling
“can't we get along” statement that he made recently. WHY, WHY aren't the Republicans standing up and raging over what is happening...making some noise, making some threats, making some moves, ANYTHING to show they have brains and balls and are as ENRAGED as we the people are. I HEAR NOTHING FROM THESE REPUBLICANS! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THEM? The Patriots in the past made war on the British for much, much less than what is being done to us by these socialist/communist/fascist tyrants. God bless Jim DeMint..support him, and DAMN the rest of those Republicans for doing NOTHING. Remember what they are NOT doing and replace them, REPLACE THEM!

[livius]

...but they will never stop unless utterly forced to by the citizenry. They are clearly on a course of central planning and dictatorship. They are even dropping the guise of acting like they are doing our will.

Excellent post. You're right.

[livius]

I never thought I’d be looking at being put in jail by my own country on the pretext of a bureaucratic infraction; I thought that happened only in Marxist dictatorships. But lately I have been waking up at night wondering what it’s going to be like to be in jail.

This is such a horrible situation that it’s almost hard for me to believe that it’s real. Thank God (and you, JR!) for Free Republic. And yes, I will demand a jury trial!

[MeanGreen2008]

I agree, Jim. However, the Interstate Commerce Clause has certainly been interpreted by the Supreme Robes to give the Congress broad powers to regulate commerce between and among the states.

My point, really, is that we should not count on the Constitutional argument and instead exercise our power as citizens to prevent the passage of whatever bill comes out of conference committee.

Senate passage is not the end, but it’s getting darn close. Now is the time to fight, fight FIGHT.

God save the Republic.

[Jim Robinson]

It’s not interstate commerce. It’s our individual liberty. They cannot take our property or liberty without due process. If they do, this is where I go Galt.