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 Fine Print of the Bill says it can't be Repealed!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

[OldDeckHand]

It's called an entrenchment provision. It's been included in plenty of previous pieces of legislation. And, it's NEVER been successful in entrenching anything. Once the GOP gets back in control of the Congress - presuming they have a compliant President to work with - they can undo ANYTHING that this Congress does, as a purely legal matter.

[John Valentine]

Absolutely not. Typical Democrat crap intended to baffle the befuddled.

[BigGaloot]

Anytime I hear the words, “Got an email from a friend,” I’m very skeptical.

[Dick Bachert]

Not to worry. This is a form or prior restraint that the SCOTUS will kill almost instantly the moment someone alleging standing attempts to come forward with a suit against a new Congress when it repeals this BS.

A legislative body can’t dictate what a future body can do with a particular piece of legislation.

If this abomination passes and we elect a few hundred AMERICANS to congress in Novemner, it is as dead as Kelsey’s nuts on St. Patty’s Day.

[Art in Idaho]

It's called an entrenchment provision. It's been included in plenty of previous pieces of legislation. And, it's NEVER been successful in entrenching anything.

OldDeckHand, Thanks for the info. Maybe can sleep now. . Man, this is going to be some week. . .

[Habibi]

It may very well be true, but it is obvious rubbish. The bill's wording does not make it effective. What can be done by Congress, can be undone. Perhaps not easily, but such a prohibition against this is obviously unworkable. No legislative act is permanent. They are all rescind-able or amendable in the fullness of time. To state otherwise merely confirms the presumptuousness of those who may have made such a statement. The legislative branch may do as they wish, and the judicial branch may choose not to consider their “procedures”, but neither will they block an act that erases such a foolish legislative act.

To attempt otherwise will leave the country ungovernable, and Obama knows it.

[the_Watchman]

This particular wording is not included in the reconciliation bill posted this evening. There are no clauses which reference the “Senate” or “repeal” which could be construed as an attempt to prevent further repeal of the provisions of this law.

Folks, lets weaken our position citing bogeymen that don’t exist!

[Artcore]

Hey Guys,

Don’t worry, Bill O’Reilly and the Factor are looking into this...he’ll tell us when it’s time to worry! Remember, they’re looking out for us! /sarc

[Art in Idaho]

Anytime I hear the words, “Got an email from a friend,” I’m very skeptical.

I am too - usually, but when I got this with the page 1000 and Section 3043, I figured someone of us that has access could check it out. Sorry if it's a false alarm.

It was this part that got me: "In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!"

[Art in Idaho]

This particular wording is not included in the reconciliation bill posted this evening. There are no clauses which reference the “Senate” or “repeal” which could be construed as an attempt to prevent further repeal of the provisions of this law.

Thank you the_Watchman for checking this. Again sorry all for the shakeup. I didn't know the bill was available until just now, otherwise would have checked it myself. My bad. . .

[Joann37]

Thank God someone is reading this thing. These dems cannot be trusted, that’s for sure.

[Oceander]

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.

I think you've hit the nail precisely on the head. This is all about gaming the system - setting up the ponzi scheme - so that they can get the CBO to issue fraudulently low cost numbers so they can stand there and say "well, gee, guys, what's so bad about a bill that the CBO says will lower costs and reduce the deficit?" And people think Bernie Madoff was the consummate scam artist? These thugs could teach Madoff more than he ever managed to figure out on his own.

[Political Junkie Too]

Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". . 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."

It's unconstitutional. How many more times do we have to do this?

Article VI Section 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This means that the laws that the Congress pass are still subserviant to the Constitution. The Constitution says in Article I Section 5 Clause 2:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

That means that each Congress (this is the 111th Congress; after the 2010 elections we will have the 112th Congress) can make its own rules. The 111th Congress cannot pass language that binds the 112th (or any future) Congress, because EACH Congress can make its own rules.

Furthermore, since the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and since Congress is established UNDER the Constitution, it laws are subserviant to the Constitution. That clarifies that a Congress cannot bind a future Congress because the binding language is in laws passed by Congress, but the (Supreme Law) Constitution says that each Congress can make its own rules. The Constitution nullifies the Congress' attempt to bind future Congresses.

Inclusion of language like this is a poison pill that will doom the bill to being overturned as unconstitutional by a Supreme Court that is honest.

-PJ

[American Constitutionalist]

Can't be repealed ?

The GOD in heaven laughs at man's arrogance, God opens doors that no man can close, and closes doors that no man can open.

We appeal to the GOD of Heaven, we call upon the GOD of Israel in Jesus Christ's name...

The GOD of Israel ? please here our cry !
REBUKE THIS BILL, THIS TYRANNY ! REBUKE THIS HEALTH CARE BILL !
PLEASE ? THE GOD OF ISRAEL !? STOP THIS BILL !!

[politicalmerc]

I don’t know if this is true or not, but if it is true it is not possible. The present Congress can not limit a future Congress’ ability to repeal a bill. That’s just not possible.

[Art in Idaho]

Political Junkie Too - Thanks for the information. . .

[mlocher]

And people think Bernie Madoff was the consummate scam artist? These thugs could teach Madoff more than he ever managed to figure out on his own.

You are correct. There is one difference however. Madoff had to provide propaganda to appease all of his investors. The liberals only need enough propaganda to appease 51% of the voters.

Stay solvent, my friend!

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[righttackle44]

I know it's easy to throw out words such as These folks are scary and other phrases. But I think we betray Americans and America every time we do. Our responsibility is to pin our sash to the ground and fight from that position until we win.