Forever Gone

Investors.com ^ | December 22, 2009 | INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Staff

[Kaslin]

Health Reform: Any law can be repealed, but the Democrats' radical health bill contains unprecedented language that could wreck the U.S. health system permanently. It's one of the dirtiest tricks yet.

'Page 1,020" — it may soon be a mantra for one of the most disturbing abuses of legislative power in history. In setting up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, that page of the Senate health overhaul bill passed in the dead of night early Monday says, "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."

This enters the realm of "hyperlaw" or "laws on steroids."

As Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., pointed out on the Senate floor, it isn't lawmaking, but rather "creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law."

DeMint is "not even sure that it's constitutional," since it affects "the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses."

Clearly liberal Democratic leaders will stoop to record depths to expand the federal government's powers.

[Lorianne]

Well, the good thing about disregarding the Constitution is that, once you get that going, anyone can do it.

Be careful what you ask for Dems.

[K-oneTexas]

Does sound unconstitutional to me. Would like to hear from a Constitutional lawyer on this one.

Can the Senate even set rules for the House to follow? I think not.

[Ballygrl]

Can this be challenged at all?

[henkster]

This is what is known as a “prospective repealer” and no, it is not enforceable. It can simply be repealed itself. It was a waste to put it into the bill, but does show just how power-mad the left has become.

[henkster]

I’m an attorney; I don’t specialize in Constitutional Law but I’ve got a good understanding. See Comment 6. It’s not valid.

[padre35]

The House has the power of the purse, if they wish they can defund the entire thing and there is not a single thing that can be done about it.

This language is funny as it attempts to use the Senate as a arbiter of the Constitution, and it was never meant to be so, because one legislative body passes a law, a future one may then repeal it no matter the language in the original law.

[TexasFreeper2009]

If nonsense like this worked, Republicans would just enact tax cuts and then say in the law that they could never be repealed.

In other words, this means nothing, move on.

[Sender]

They cannot make a law and then declare that such law cannot be amended or abolished. Hello. Paging the riflemen.

[mplsconservative]

Thanks for that info. I hope to heck it can be repealed. I am sick to death of these communists and the imperial -21bama!

[Kaslin]

If I understood the reporter on Fox News right, they mad it so that it can not be repealed. I hope that I am wrong

[JDoutrider]

tick...tick...tick...

[Kansas58]

Agree with most of what you said.

However, we ALL have the power to interpret the Constitution/

The Congress and the President and the SCOTUS have EQUAL powers to interpret and ENFORCE the Constitution.

I think that the legislative and executive branches have been far too docile.

I think BOTH should tell SCOTUS when and where the Supreme Court has been wrong.

[mplsconservative]

Bah! That doesn’t seem very ‘constitutional’, but who knows in this upside-down world.

In about seven hours, my husband, son and I are going to negotiate our way from the Twin Cities area to South Dakota. Not liking what I’m seeing in the forecast, hopefully we’ll beat the storm without sliding off the road. :)

The downside is no internet access at my parents. The EVILDOERS in the senate knew we would be preoccupied. I hate those @#$%^&. Not the Christian sentiment I want to have. We’re battling evil folks.

[garjog]

Maybe they are setting up this provision to be challenged in court as unconstitutional. After Obama appoints a couple more Marxists to the Supremes, they will rule that because health care is a “right” it can't be subject to the whims of elected officials and must be forever free to all who need or want it, regardless of the cost.

[Cheetahcat]

We have to regain the house and cut funding for this illegal monstrosity.

[FunkyZero]

Question to anyone who may have a valid answer...

Can this thing be challenged in court to the point where an injunction could stall it long enough for it to be repealed? We only need 12 months... we all know what is going to happen next november.

[grey_whiskers]

Well, the good thing about disregarding the Constitution is that, once you get that going, anyone can do it.

Be careful what you ask for Dems.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

NO More Calls, Please!

We have a WINNER!

Let's start by ignoring the bill of attainder and restrictions on ex post facto laws, against Democrats only: with a rider that no agency of the US government or any other government can ever change that portion of the bill. /sarc>

Cheers!

[OneWingedShark]

>After Obama appoints a couple more Marxists to the Supremes, they will rule that because health care is a “right” it can’t be subject to the whims of elected officials and must be forever free to all who need or want it, regardless of the cost.

Funny thing about legal ‘rights’ and laws and regulations is that they may not mean much to reality. Take, for instance, the hoplophobia (fear of weapons, esp. guns) demonstrated by the lawmakers and policy-setters in the wake of Ft. Hood... if we extend this logically, we wind up with laws saying that it is illegal for high-velocity projectiles to hit said policymakers and politicians... reality might say that they are killed by a sharp rock thrown by a lawn-mower and not give a rat’s ass about it being illegal. (And that’s completely disregarding that murder IS illegal, and yet people do it anyway.)