We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bugscoe, Dec 22, 2009.

  1. We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

    The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels
    By Erick Erickson
    Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST

    If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

    It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

    It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

    On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

    Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

    To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

    Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “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.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

    Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

    Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

    How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

    Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

    The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

    Senator DeMint responded:

    That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

    To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:

    This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.
     
  2. When (and if) "enough" people become outraged at being fucked-over and oppressed, there will be a Second American Revolution... like ones in other countries throughout history.

    Until then, WE'RE SCREWED!!
     
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

    Premature, melodramatic.
     
  4. Where specifically in the US Constitution do you see two thirds majority for Senate rule change? and for that matter, do you see filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) ? and the definition of procedure versus rules ?

    Congressional rules and procedures are not laws and the Supreme court will not get involve in their determination.
     
  5. It might help if you actually read the article so that you could better understand the title.
     
  6. He asked you a good question.
    Why are you unable to answer it?
     
  7. Making the Death Panels Permanent
    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Tuesday, December 22nd

    There are always, when some of us on the right blow up an issue like Harry Reid’s rules changes, some people who say we’re overreacting.

    I have to say I think they miss the point.

    First, I do agree with Gabriel Malor that “a quick glance at the Library of Congress website and Google shows that language similar to that used here to except these provisions from the Standing Rules has been used dozens of times in the past thirty years in both the Senate and the House, including in the 109th Congress when Republicans controlled both chambers.”

    Second, I do agree the GOP has done thing, including with Medicare Part D.

    But, in most all of the cases, though not all including Medicare Part D, the Senate first went through a procedural vote requiring a two-thirds vote in recognition that there would be a change of Senate Rules.

    In several of the cases, including Medicare Part D, when that two-thirds vote did not first happen, the 51 person vote went forward without an objection being raised by the Democrats on that point.

    Here is where I think the people saying we’re overreacting are totally missing the point.

    In the case at hand, an objection was raised and very clearly the rules were being changed. The Senate President, however, ruled that the rules were not being changed, just procedure, despite the clear wording of the change being a rules change.

    This is, in fact, done in contravention to Senate procedure.

    But here is what everyone saying this is no big deal is missing: to my knowledge and the knowledge of those who I have consulted with on this issue, there has never been any legislation passed by the Congress with a prohibition on future Senates considering changes to previously enacted laws or regulations.

    We can argue over whether or not this would be upheld, but given the refusal of the Senate GOP Leadership to fight now, we can wonder if they would fight on this in the future.

    Likewise, what exactly is Harry Reid trying to prevent future Senates from repealing? Bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Death Panels. So, for example, though the Death Panels are prohibited by statute from passing “rationing” regulations, under the definitions, the panels can pass regulations setting priorities for treatment. So, they can say a 40 year old must get treatment for the same condition suffered by a 70 year old before the 70 year old can get treatment, thereby letting the 70 year old whither and die waiting for their turn.

    And Harry Reid intends for the Senate, in perpetuity, to be prohibited from every changing that regulation without a super-majority of the Senate agreeing to ignore that prohibition.

    Lastly, why in God’s name would the Senate Majority Leader want to make the Death Panel regulations the only thing in the Obamacare legislation that is not subject to amendment, repeal, or change by the United States Senate?!
     
  8. I understand it is a lot easier to quote sensational headlines and copy and paste, rather than to understand the issues. Here is the simple explanation for those who really want to understand:

    The headline of this thread is "We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws".

    My response previously was that these are not laws:
    Unless you can tell me why you think these are "laws" being broken and explain the difference between a Senate procedure and a Senate rule and how you considered them as "laws", the basis for the headline is invalid.
     
  9. You are correct.

    You must forgive the beleaguered Bugswatter as he has no clue as to what in fact is legally binding, and what is not. He is merely one of those "paper-trading" paupers on ET that has nothing better to do with his day but post sensationalist tabloid garbage, without turning on what little brain matter he has left.


    :D
     
  10. fhl

    fhl



    Because it's hard to make <s>life and</s> death decisions with someone looking over your shoulder.


    As an aside, don't ya luv the folks who smile approvingly when the senate asks the cbo to score the money involved in this plan with sham tactics, but are outraged when they see an anonymous poster put a 'sensational' headline on an internet thread?

    It's too much, too much i tell ya!
    :D :D
     
    #10     Dec 24, 2009