Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

[Zoom-boing]

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:

We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare - Erick’s blog - RedState

 

[EriktheRed]

Mr. Erickson might have a point, I'm afraid to admit. At the very least this looks questionable on first read.


Of course, by pushing the "death panel" crap while making this point he shows he still has one on the top of his wingnut head, too.

 

[Truthmatters]

Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


Now there is growing momentum to change the filibuster rule – which, opponents are quick to point out, is not written into the Constitution. Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters he is considering re-introducing a bill to significantly soften the power of the filibuster.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


Now there is growing momentum to change the filibuster rule – which, opponents are quick to point out, is not written into the Constitution. Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters he is considering re-introducing a bill to significantly soften the power of the filibuster.

Yes and I RECALL the absolute SCREAMS from the left during Bush's term how such a move was just CRIMINALLY incompetent and was the worst possible thing that could happen. Now the Dems think it is the best option available.

Well until they only have 49 votes again, then we will all hear how 60 is the best thing in the world.

 

[EriktheRed]

Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


Now there is growing momentum to change the filibuster rule – which, opponents are quick to point out, is not written into the Constitution. Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters he is considering re-introducing a bill to significantly soften the power of the filibuster.

Don't hold your breath on that.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Shit. It's getting to where a Congressman can't pick up an extra few bucks anymore. If we do away with the bribes in politics we'll never get anybody to run for office.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


Now there is growing momentum to change the filibuster rule – which, opponents are quick to point out, is not written into the Constitution. Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters he is considering re-introducing a bill to significantly soften the power of the filibuster.

It'll never become a rule in the Senate. Whatever the Senate Dem's dotoday will come back to haunt them when they are in the minority in a couple short years...or perhaps months at the rate they are going right now.

 

[dilloduck]

Shit. It's getting to where a Congressman can't pick up an extra few bucks anymore. If we do away with the bribes in politics we'll never get anybody to run for office.

We shoud be so lucky.

 

[Xenophon]

It doesn't matter what 'provision' Reid put in, no Congress is bound by a past Congress.

The next Congress can change it no matter what they passed.