http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/31/stacking-the-deck-for-obamacare/
” The latest Rasmussen poll shows that voters oppose the bill by a 14-percentage point margin. Reading through the legislation, some bizarre provisions jump out that indicate Democrats do worry that Americans won’t be pleased with their systemic surgery to health care.
One provision actually changes Senate and House rules, making it much more difficult for future Congresses to undo the legislation once it is passed. According to Page 1,020 of the Reid bill, “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.” Just in case Americans revolt against this mess once they know what’s in it, Democrats are ensuring the law itself will be against the law to change.
The Senate requires a two-thirds vote to change its rules, but two-thirds of the Senate would not agree to a change in this case because none of the 40 Republican senators would support it. So, Democrats are trying to include the rule changes they want in the text of the health care legislation itself.
If the health care bill passes, some changes to it will require a three-fifths vote by the Senate to even consider voting on a change. Another separate three-fifths vote will be required to pass it. All this is in addition to the current three-fifths rule to invoke cloture to end debate.
As for the House, the bill will introduce supermajority-voting rules where none currently exist. The current House health care bill couldn’t even muster a three-fifths vote, just barely passing by 220 to 215. That’s far short of the 261-vote support that would be required to change the bill once it’s passed.
As Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, pointed out on the Senate floor on Dec. 21, if such an end run around Senate rules is constitutional, Democrats could put this restriction in every bill they pass from now on and just get rid of the normal majority vote rule.
Possibly the Democrats are even thinking too small. Rather than requiring a three-fifths vote, why not a four-fifths or higher requirement to undo any of the legislation they pass?
Secrecy and dirty tricks don’t make it look like Democrats believe Americans will reward them for empowering government even more.
If this were constitutional, couldn’t ANY majority congress say bills it passes can’t be changed without, oh, unanimous vote? How would that be different?
Website content
Create a video blog
I can not wait till 2010 to get rid of these people.*
Kansieo.com
DAR, it’s just more politickin’. This senate/house may well say… :This bill can not be altered in any manner in the future as it is above the existing law of the United States of America as of today & forever.” The next house/senate just does what they want with the bill, either keep it, modify it or dump it. I mean the house/senate walks all over our Constitution/Bill of Rights today, even as I am typing this response. The 10th amendment has been so thoroughly by passed that some folks ask why even have a constitution at all.
If the liberal court tried to over ride a modification on a bill as described above, the house just calls in the judges in question & asks them… :Ya like your phukin job?” Remember, congress makes the laws AND GIVES THE *INTENT* OF THE LAW , the senate okay’s the laws then sends it to the CIC for signature then the law goes before the the court fir a constitutional check.
Remember, fed judges are appointed by the CIC. Fed judges are FIRED bt the house of Representatives!
I always make sure that my family gets Health Insurance from very reputable companies. health insurance is very important these days.’”`