• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

rudder

rudder

Lifer
"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Certain parts of the Reid bill will not be able to be repealed.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 Imagine if every law that was written could not be repealed.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.
 
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.
 
What happens when China no longer buys bonds? I think you'll be surprised how many bills are instantly repealed. Sooner than later.
 
CycloWizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
 
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'.
 
eskimospy said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
mav451 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thump553 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
rudder said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ausm said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would require Republicans to gain a majority. Until then all Democrats have to do is kill it in comitee.
 
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.
 
eskimospy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Ausm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Craig234 said:
Including Republicans filibustering a recent Department of Defense bill including pay for troops.
Click to expand...
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.
 
cubby1223 said:
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
Click to expand...

What's your excuse for not understandig it's about Republican obstructionism, not responsible slowing?
 
ProfJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
werepossum said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice straw man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top