BREAKING: The Tyranny of Harry Reid! Fine Print of the Bill says it can't be Repealed!

email from a friend | March 14, 2010 | Art in Idaho

[Art in Idaho]

If this isn't true, I apologize, but if it is, it's dynamite! You folks that have access to the Bill, (which Bill is it now?), please clarify if this is true. Thank you ahead of time. . .

[DarthVader]

This is old news and Harry is wasting his breath. It is the kind of language that the SCOTUS has grounds to overturn.

[beethovenfan]

Massive civil disobedience coming. Screw Harry Reid. The people can throw off the yoke of tyranny.

[heshtesh]

A current Congress cannot pass a law that infringes a future Congress period.

[jakerobins]

I don’t know what the SCOTUS will do .....but I think their will be many challanges on the constitutionality of this Bill.......

Dems are going to pay a heavy price for this also passing the bill the way they did......

[boycott]

I was reading today that David Axlerod’s mother wrote for a left-wing communist newspaper during WWII.

These folks are scary.

[Robe]

From what I understand ... no congress can stipulate to, or encumber another congress through legislation.. now that's from my high school/college years some 40 years ago...

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT

[BunnySlippers]

Is that even legal?

[Kozak]

He’s just blowing smoke up his own a##.
He can’t do anything that will bind a future congress from acting.

[Gargantua]

All bills passed carry potential unintended consequences which, down the road, could prove detrimental and injurious to the nation. For this reason, a bill cannot be passed "in cement," fixed and un-amendable or un-repealable.

I'm truly glad the ass-chimp, Bukkaki O'Bunga and his butt-suck, Harry Reid, are such zealots that they actually included this language. Because now it can (and will) be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Tying the hands of future Congresses in this manner is un-Constitutional in the extreme. They only put this in there because they know how the country is going to revolt when it passes.

Megalomaniacal assh*les, they should all be whipped within and inch, the filthy Kommie dirtbags.

IMHO.

;-/

[Art in Idaho]

A current Congress cannot pass a law that infringes a future Congress period.

Okay, thanks. I thought so too, but with this bunch, I figure they will try anything. . .

[dajeeps]

I think it is true. I read the senate bill a few months ago and remember seeing it there.

Unlike its passage where the VP will have to come in and overrule the parlamentarian over and over as each point of order is raised in reconciliation and having it blazing across the TV sets of an American public that is deeply opposed to the bill, I doubt whoever is VP in 2013 will suffer backlash from doing it on its repeal.

Rules are rules, but they can be overridden. This bit of chicanery inserted by Reid just makes it more of challenge, but not impossible.

[umgud]

Where’s that damn speed-reader when you need him?

[mlocher]

This is in the bill so the CBO will make favorable assumptions about how much the bill will cost. If the true cost were known -— ouch. The dems are gaming the CBO. Garbage in, garbage out.

[heshtesh]

And we know your correct about that.

[nutmeg]

??

[TheThinker]

Is that even legal?

It's unconstitutional.

[Tarpon]

Anything can be repealed regardless what dingy says ... No Congress can bind another.

Did you know that in order to be a native born citizen, both your father and mother must be native born citizens. I don’t think that includes Kenyan fathers.

[FormerACLUmember]

I know this, but it shows that the communists (yes, communists) are in power.