Senate rules are in place prevent a tyrannical majority from abusing power...

[rudder]

"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."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

Certain parts of the Reid bill will not be able to be repealed. Not by future legislstures...even after Reid and Pelosi are long gone.

First off this will not pass the constitutional stink test. If it did it means the democrats could end the way our government is run. Imagine if every law that was written could not be repealed. The credit card companies would start spending billions upon billions to lobby (buy off) congress. The there is the pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, etc,etc. At least now the buy offs are limited because they know that laws can change.

This is just insane.

 

[Patranus]

Change you can believe in!

 

[CycloWizard]

Fine. If they can't repeal that subsection, I guess they just have to repeal the whole, stinking mess. This is starting to sound like the worst bill ever written.

 

[Zebo]

What happens when China no longer buys bonds? I think you'll be surprised how many bills are instantly repealed. Sooner than later.

 

[Patranus]

Fine. If they can't repeal that subsection, I guess they just have to repeal the whole, stinking mess. This is starting to sound like the worst bill ever written.

Why do you think people are so upset. This is noting more than another pork filled bill that really does nothing except grant handouts to the insurance industry.

Obama like to talk about the evil insurance company...well...he is about to increase their customer base by 30 million people and that revenue stream will be subsidized by the federal government.

(And people say the GOP is in the pocket of the insurance industry)

 

[MotF Bane]

And the next Congress to come along writes a brief law "it shall be within the power of Congress to modify and repeal any subsections of <insert bill name here>".

Not too worried, the next pack of scum will figure out how to change it if they are so inclined.

 

[fskimospy]

easily changed, absolutely not a big deal in the slightest.

Never ceases to amaze me how quickly people find 'tyranny' behind every corner when the party they like less is in power. Maybe John Stewart was right though, some people confuse 'tyranny' with 'losing'.

 

[mav451]

easily changed, absolutely not a big deal in the slightest.

Never ceases to amaze me how quickly people find 'tyranny' behind every corner when the party they like less is in power. Maybe John Stewart was right though, some people confuse 'tyranny' with 'losing'.

Normally I would agree with you, but Reid said some truly ridiculous shit equating the opposition to opposing suffrage, supporting slavery, etc. As for changing healthcare - it's not a good sign when even huffingtonpost is calling out things on the health care bill.

 

[Thump553]

The person who wrote that blog is, quite frankly, either a moron or dissembling. He equates Senate procedural rules as something higher than statute and in his own words, possibly even constitutional? Absolute and utter nonsense-he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

I think we have more to worry about with the tyranny of a just-say-no-for-purely political-reasons minority than any so-called tyranny of the majority. After all, our system is predicated exactly upon majority rule-subject to constitutional restrictions and certain exceptional situations that require two-thirds approval (treaty ratification and war declaration, for example). In those exceptional situations the Founding Fathers decried that a substantial majority was necessary for the country to act. The Founding Fathers never ever declared that a supermajority was necessary for such routine Congressional business-that was a political ploy imposed by the major two political parties much later to preserve their power-not the peoples.

 

[fskimospy]

Normally I would agree with you, but Reid said some truly ridiculous shit equating the opposition to opposing suffrage, supporting slavery, etc. As for changing healthcare - it's not a good sign when even huffingtonpost is calling out things on the health care bill.

But what does partisan rhetoric really have to do with what we're talking about here? Harry Reid can say whatever he wants, but it doesn't make it easier or harder to change back. I mean on one side you have Reid saying 'SLAVERY', and on the other side you have people saying 'NAZI DEATH CAMPS'. It's stupidity all around.

The Huffington Post is primarily concerned with sensationalism first, being liberal second. Liberals aren't particularly happy with the compromises in this bill either, but such is life. Hell, I thought having medicare light should have been the compromise to begin with, because we should have started with single payer.

 

[Sinsear]

"Most ethical Congress ever!"

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Subsection being a key term.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The person who wrote that blog is, quite frankly, either a moron or dissembling. He equates Senate procedural rules as something higher than statute and in his own words, possibly even constitutional? Absolute and utter nonsense-he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

I think we have more to worry about with the tyranny of a just-say-no-for-purely political-reasons minority than any so-called tyranny of the majority. After all, our system is predicated exactly upon majority rule-subject to constitutional restrictions and certain exceptional situations that require two-thirds approval (treaty ratification and war declaration, for example). In those exceptional situations the Founding Fathers decried that a substantial majority was necessary for the country to act. The Founding Fathers never ever declared that a supermajority was necessary for such routine Congressional business-that was a political ploy imposed by the major two political parties much later to preserve their power-not the peoples.

Death Panels are just as dumb as your argument. Sarah Palin is that you?

The Founding Fathers never intended for a party to be a bunch of whiny bitches who complain when they don't get their way. Would you have been thrilled if the Republicans had included a "you cannot change this law in the future" clause in their bills when Bush was in office? Well it would have been part of the law, and goose meet gander.

It's all about you winning. Just fess up, and stop the window dressing. Party Uber Alles is your thing. Embrace your evil.

 

[fskimospy]

Death Panels are just as dumb as your argument. Sarah Palin is that you?

The Founding Fathers never intended for a party to be a bunch of whiny bitches who complain when they don't get their way. Would you have been thrilled if the Republicans had included a "you cannot change this law in the future" clause in their bills when Bush was in office? Well it would have been part of the law, and goose meet gander.

It's all about you winning. Just fess up, and stop the window dressing. Party Uber Alles is your thing. Embrace your evil.

So my question about all this is, do you honestly think that the quoted section of the bill would actually be successful in preventing alteration of the act by a future Congress? I can't see how any rational person would think so. So if it doesn't, then who cares?

 

[Ausm]

"Most ethical Congress ever!"

LOL yeah...I can't wait to see what the Rethuglican's will do when the Dems fillibuster everything they try to ram through Congress.

 

[werepossum]

"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."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

Certain parts of the Reid bill will not be able to be repealed. Not by future legislstures...even after Reid and Pelosi are long gone.

First off this will not pass the constitutional stink test. If it did it means the democrats could end the way our government is run. Imagine if every law that was written could not be repealed. The credit card companies would start spending billions upon billions to lobby (buy off) congress. The there is the pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, etc,etc. At least now the buy offs are limited because they know that laws can change.

This is just insane.

Since the Warren Court nothing is guaranteed to be unconstitutional. Instead, SCOTUS views itself as the ultimate arbiter of what society should be, not as the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says. For instance, justices sometimes quote foreign laws as justification for dismantling US laws. If five Clowns in Gowns decide this should stand, it will stand.

 

[Genx87]

LOL yeah...I can't wait to see what the Rethuglican's will do when the Dems fillibuster everything they try to ram through Congress.

That would require Republicans to gain a majority. Until then all Democrats have to do is kill it in comitee.

 

[Craig234]

A little info on why Dems have to get around Republican obstructionism, as I recall from a radio show:

In the 1960's, percent of legislation the Republican minority did or threatened to filibuster: 8%
By the 1980's: 25%
After the Republicans lost Congress in 20076: 70%

Including Republicans filibustering a recent Department of Defense bill including pay for troops.

As the host put it, Republicans took a pretty much "anything goes to stop healthcare" position.

 

[cubby1223]

So my question about all this is, do you honestly think that the quoted section of the bill would actually be successful in preventing alteration of the act by a future Congress? I can't see how any rational person would think so. So if it doesn't, then who cares?

This country is home to a large army of lawyers.

Still, why would this have been written in the bill if they aren't trying to make it permanent?

 

[cubby1223]

LOL yeah...I can't wait to see what the Rethuglican's will do when the Dems fillibuster everything they try to ram through Congress.

The whole point is, nothing should ever be rammed through Congress, regardless what letter is beside the names of the party in control, but you're too wrapped up in this "us versus them" mentality to recognize that

 

[ProfJohn]

Including Republicans filibustering a recent Department of Defense bill including pay for troops.

They filibustered that bill as a delaying tactic.

Their aim was to push the healthcare bill into 2010 by delaying everything that comes down the pike. Might not be the best of tactics, but it is certainly no worse than Reid buying votes like he did with Nelson's.

 

[Craig234]

The whole point is, nothing should ever be rammed through Congress, regardless what letter is beside the names of the party in control, but you're too wrapped up in this "us versus them" mentality to recognize that

What's your excuse for not understandig it's about Republican obstructionism, not responsible slowing?

 

[Craig234]

They filibustered that bill as a delaying tactic.

Their aim was to push the healthcare bill into 2010 by delaying everything that comes down the pike. Might not be the best of tactics, but it is certainly no worse than Reid buying votes like he did with Nelson's.

Yes, it is.

Not to mention the rank hypocrisy.

For example, Republicans, and posters including you. atacked John Kerry with lies when he simply voted for troop funding to be paid for, not borrowed - this is over politics to hurt Democrats. Kerry voted YES for the bill that did not borrow the money, while Bush took the opposite position to oppose the bill that did not borrow the money.

 

[cubby1223]

What's your excuse for not understandig it's about Republican obstructionism, not responsible slowing?

Considering that I reject your "progressive" utopia, I think the answer to your question is self-explanatory.

 

[fskimospy]

Since the Warren Court nothing is guaranteed to be unconstitutional. Instead, SCOTUS views itself as the ultimate arbiter of what society should be, not as the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says. For instance, justices sometimes quote foreign laws as justification for dismantling US laws. If five Clowns in Gowns decide this should stand, it will stand.

Nice straw man.