Posted by: ST on December 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
Check this out (via Memeorandum):
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And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”
and i quote — “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 is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.
You can view the video at the WS link above.
Erick Erickson responds:
If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”
It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.
On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Unless you’re Harry Reid, apparently. And this jack-a$$ has the nerve to call for the Senate to be “civil” as the vote on this phony “reform” bill inches closer?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday the Senate needs to have a “Rodney King” moment in its healthcare debate.
During a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Reid channeled King, the victim of a 1991 police brutality incident, who made his famous plea for unity after courts acquitted police officers in his beating, sparking the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
“I’ve said to a number of people, Rodney King: ‘Let’s just all try to get along,’” Reid said this morning on the Senate floor.
“I said when the Senate opened today and I’ll say again because of the long hours we’ve spent here for weeks now, there’s a lot of tension in the Senate,” Reid said. “And feelings are high. And that’s fine. Everybody has very strong concerns about everything we have done and have to do.”
Damn right they do!
Bill Jacobson puts a fine point on it all:
In this rush to pass legislation by Christmas, the most fundamental aspect of representative democracy is being lost. The Democrats are about to pass legislation which divests the Congress of its ability to change legislation.
This is what we have come to. A Democratic majority ready to hand over a fundamental aspect of our health care system to an unelected panel without any future Congress being able to change this procedure.
Some readers have e-mailed me asking if this is constitutional. The answer is that I don’t know, and in the rush to pass this by the day after tomorrow, no one will have time to fully sort through this issue. But that is the point of the rush. Load up the legislation with so many controversial points that no one can figure it all out prior to the vote.
We are like lambs led to the slaughter.
As to where the “outrage” is on the left, you know, the ones who screamed, whined, stamped their feet, marched on Washington, DC to protest and demand investigations into the “thuggish” Bush administration for allegedly wanting to “steal your rights” in the dark of night under the guise of “keeping you safe”? Don’t hold your breath. This isn’t “stealing” power to these people. This is “doing what’s best for you – even though you don’t know it yet.”
Chilling.
Merry Christmas?
Contrary to the screaming in this post, the Senate can do whatever it darn well pleases, as long as it meets constitutional muster.
As long as it follows the rules in existence today.
And, a 60-vote passage doesn’t meet those rules.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would think that, because any citizen is directly affected by this legislation, any citizen would be able to contest it in court with standing.
Seems to me the good senator from Nevada is trying to institute a constitutional amendment without going through the messy process spelled out in the Constitution.
But like I said, I’m not an Ivy League academic or Chicago thug lawyer, so what do I know?
Carlos,
I am a lawyer and you’re wrong. Legislation passes by majority vote, period. Congress can’t require a supermajority vote to overturn legislation–this is unconstitutional. A court won’t enforce this provision.
Senate rules require a 2/3 majority to reform. This section of the law is an attempt to subvert the 2/3 majority requirement by implementing a Senate rule change through legislation–hence DeMint’s confusion.
This is also probably unconstitutional as a violation of the delegation doctrine, an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Regarding the language requiring a super-majority, Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades points out that there’s precedent for this in prior legislation and that DeMint probably has this wrong. I tend to agree: it’s sneaky and dirty, and other parts of the bill are probably unconstitutional (the individual mandate, for example), but this isn’t.
Reid is still a swine, however.
Let’s see, so far, Reid and his band of thugs have called anyone who opposes Obamacare birthers, fanatics, Aryan support groups, Un-American, fascists, Astroturfers, racists, and Neanderthals.
And I’m sure I missed a slur or ten in that list.
So it’s a little late in the game for Reid to whine about civility. Excuse me, Harry, but you can put this Marxist, job-destroying bit of garbage where the sun (you know, the thing in the sky that you claim doesn’t cause global warming) don’t shine.
Why would Harry Reid care if he helps destroy medical care in this country. He knows he more than likely won’t be re-elected, so he’ll do like most of the other losers in DC. Get job as a lobbyist and smirk around town with his buddies.
I doubt he’ll go back to NV, a place he probably can’t find on a map.
My business mentor once gave me a pearl of wisdom: “Only the camel knows when the final straw in laid upon its back.”
It seems that saying can be applied to our Constitution, and the pospotus, the two lying court jesters have laid the final straw which will break the backs of a people who have loved over 200 years of freedom. That we shall NOT carry one more straw for them! Let them shoulder the burden alone and be destroyed by weight of their own selfishness and greed.
This is a dog-bites-man blog entry. Two elements must be present for one to be upset that Democrats have a “blatant disregard” for the Constitution: a) the Dems have to have a regard for the Constitution to begin with, and b) they would have to recognize and agree to be held by your moral code. They don’t. To think otherwise is to deny reality, and denying reality is an embrace of the irrational. The sooner Americans wake up to this, the better.
Is now the right time for us all to quit our jobs and jump on gummn’t assistance? I think the “collapse Leviathan” moment is upon us.
Some points:
First, I doubt that a change by statute can bind any future Congress. I find ‘Just Visiting’s’ remarks somewhat comforting, since s/he is a lawyer and will know the law far better than I. That Reid et. al. have apparently tried to so bind future Congresses merely shows their true contempt for both Constitution and People. The lesson here is: we, the People–in whom the sovereign power ultimately resides–must be vigilant in asserting our liberties. At the moment, in this Congress, it appears we are governed by those who either do not understand our Constitution, or do not care about its strictures. In any case, we must look to our own understanding of it, in order that we may raise court challenges to any legislation which violates the Constitution. And, of course, vote out the idiots who pass un-Constitutional bills, and replace them with those who will truly adhere to the document.
Second, as another writer here commented, I suspect any citizen would have standing to challenge the core provision of this monstrosity, namely that he be forced to buy a good. I’m fairly sure this wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster. ‘Just Visiting’, would you like to comment?
Third, at least a few states can (and are) engaging in outright nullification of this bill. I’m not clear on the legal ramifications of nullification, and would be interested to learn from others whether nullification is legal if, in the first instance, a given Federal measure was un-Constitutional. Again, I’d be interested in hearing from any legal experts on this forum, as a number of nullification moves are de facto under way, as I understand it.
Here’s an interesting piece on ‘can a Congressional session bind future Congresses?’:
http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2009/12/22/can-one-congress-bind-another/
The short answer, it seems, is ‘no’.
Comments?
I confess – I had something in mind OTHER than “can we all just get along” when I heard that there was the need for a “Rodney King Moment” …
Just Visiting, I believe we’re arguing on the same side, but with different words. The Senate cannot change the rules by which it governs itself without the 2/3 vote, and they’ve stuck rules-change language into regular legislation.
If the rules changes were ok with the 2/3 majority, it would get the necessary votes provided the rest of the legislation was agreeable with them. But since there was not a 2/3 vote in favor, I would think the legislation could be struck down because of that language.
But like I say, I’m not a lawyer, I just understand (and used to teach) the English language, and when a legal document says “You can’t” or Thou shalt not”, I just kind of assume it’s a strict prohibition.