Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HR 3200 hidden agenda
HR 3200

Posted on 03/15/2010 11:31:52 AM PDT by custergg

*Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. * *Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! * *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." * *In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! * *Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." *


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; democrats; healthcare; obamacare; reid; socialisthealthcare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 03/15/2010 11:31:52 AM PDT by custergg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: custergg

How unconstitutional must a representative or president get before being charged with violation of their oath of office?


2 posted on 03/15/2010 11:34:37 AM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

Because of Section 3403, the HR 3200 should be deemed unconstitutional. This “poisen pill” should work both ways.


3 posted on 03/15/2010 11:35:38 AM PDT by jonrick46 (We're being water boarded with the sewage of Fascism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

Can a bill signed into law specify the content and limits of future related laws? Though they may try it, I don’t think it has the legs to stand.


4 posted on 03/15/2010 11:37:23 AM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy should have a field-day with that.

SnakeDoc


5 posted on 03/15/2010 11:37:36 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions." -- Robin Hood (Russell Crowe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Faith

It is, in essence, a Constitutional amendment (changing the functional operation of the Legislature) that did not go through the amendment process.

The Court may have a problem with that.

SnakeDoc


6 posted on 03/15/2010 11:38:38 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions." -- Robin Hood (Russell Crowe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: custergg
If challenged in court, will it be upheld by SCOTUS, first question?

Could not one write a law to say ignore the first law?

7 posted on 03/15/2010 11:39:04 AM PDT by Recon Dad ( USMC SSgt Patrick O - 3rd Afghanistan Deployment - Day 146)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

This codicil and $3.50 will buy you a Frappe Latte at Starbucks.


8 posted on 03/15/2010 11:39:57 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

somebody needs impeachin’!!!


9 posted on 03/15/2010 11:41:09 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
The Court may have a problem with that.

Agree. Every thinking American should have a problem with it.

10 posted on 03/15/2010 11:41:48 AM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: custergg

The fact that they would waste time with something like this shows just how stupid they are.


11 posted on 03/15/2010 11:42:42 AM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

LOL! THAT’LL pass the Supreme Court! LOL!


12 posted on 03/15/2010 11:45:00 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg
The practice of "legislative entrenchment" (the practice by which a legislature insulates ordinary statutes from repeal by a subsequent legislature) is broadly considered to be unconstitutional. In addition, textual, historical, and structural arguments appear to make a very compelling case against the constitutionality of legislative entrenchment.

One of the legal sources I discovered also made this comment:

"In particular, the Framers incorporated into the Constitution the traditional Anglo-American practice against legislative entrenchment, as evidenced by early comments by James Madison... Moreover, legislative entrenchment essentially would allow Congress to use majority rule to pass constitutional amendments."

13 posted on 03/15/2010 11:45:58 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: custergg

No Congress can control or bind another Congress.

Harry can print anything wants and pretend it’s true, but it only makes him look even less intelligent than he does now.


14 posted on 03/15/2010 11:46:09 AM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad
See my post #13.
15 posted on 03/15/2010 11:47:25 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
It is, in essence, a Constitutional amendment (changing the functional operation of the Legislature) that did not go through the amendment process.

No Congress shall be bound by the actions of a previous Congress.

16 posted on 03/15/2010 11:48:30 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: custergg

This alone should allow the SCOUSA to toss the whole thing out. You can not change Senate law without a 67 vote margin and they only had 60 votes.


17 posted on 03/15/2010 11:48:31 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Congress cannot change the Constitution by itself ... so any such change would be unconstitutional and not binding on a subsequent Congress.

SnakeDoc


18 posted on 03/15/2010 11:50:26 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions." -- Robin Hood (Russell Crowe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: custergg

between that clause and the Slaughter Rule, it sounds like they should name this bill the Members of the Supreme Court Bar Full Employment Act of 2010


19 posted on 03/15/2010 11:52:53 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

And I could say more to that, but don’t want to get banned!


20 posted on 03/15/2010 11:54:06 AM PDT by kacres
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson