Reid Included Language In ObamaCare Bill That Ensures No Future Congress Can Repeal The Monstrosity

Loading

Now this will piss you off. Apparently hidden inside the Senate version of ObamaCare is a provision that ensures that any future Congress can not change or repeal this monstrosity:


there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”

and i quote — “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.”

this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Oh….that’s not it by a long shot. Senator Roland Burris, the Senator that claimed he would never vote for this bill without public option, now will vote for this bill without public option. Why?

Burris told THE WEEKLY STANDARD: “It was the disparity provision that was put in, which we had something to do with, in terms of making sure that diabetes and the other diseases that are affecting minorities are really studied by HHS in all of these pilot programs.”

The provision he cites, found on pages 240 through 248 of the manager’s amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.” The agencies are the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.”

According to page 241 of the amendment:

In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary, acting through the Deputy Assistant Secretary, shall award grants, contracts, enter into memoranda of understanding, cooperative, interagency, intra-agency and other agreements with public and nonprofit private entities, agencies, as well as Departmental and Cabinet agencies and organizations, and with organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color to assure improved health status of racial and ethnic minorities, and shall develop measures to evaluate the effectiveness of activities aimed at reducing health disparities and supporting the local community. Such measures shall evaluate community outreach activities, language services, workforce cultural competence, and other areas as determined by the Secretary.’’

According to a Senate legislative aide, the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now could qualify for grants under this provision. ACORN would also qualify for funding on page 150 of the underlying Reid bill, which says that “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups” may receive grants to “conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans.”

Earlier this year, Congress passed and the president signed into law a ban on federal funding for ACORN, but a judge ruled that that law was unconstitutional. If a higher court reverses that ruling, ACORN may be prohibited from receiving funds through the Office of Minority Health earmark. But according to the Senate legislative aide, ACORN would still “absolutely” qualify for federal funding through the provision in the underlying Reid bill because the anti-ACORN appropriations amendment would not apply to funds provided through the health care exchanges.

So not only is Harry Reid trying to impose a Senate rule that would forbid any future representatives of the states and/or people from repealing or changing ObamaCare, now we have Senators including language that makes it so that corrupt organizations like ACORN can get a piece of the pie.

But maybe there is hope….Rich Lowry has a few reasons why this thing may not pass.

But with sweetheart deals like these, it will be hard to stop it:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hitler had the “Enabling Act” which led to his dictatorship and Harry Reid has this vile provision.

It ain’t a rule change. It’s legislative tyranny. Right-wingers better get ready for a fire in the Reischstag.

You’re right – I am PISSED OFF – Those bafoons!

Harry Reid’s house of corruption

can’t the Parlimentarian rule this as a rule change ? and thus require 66 votes for passage ?
they of course will just remove it but if they do then it is and amendment and that restarts the debate clock …

Stalinism at full force! The Bolshevik Revolution re-lived. This is a one party system and that is how Obama is ruling and nobody is going to get those bafoons out of office unless we the American people act and demonstrate outside D.C. on a regular base.
My friends, Honduras showed us the way and it works! It is possible to destroy the Obama Banana Communist Republic that he is trying to create.

It seems to me,

That Congress is in the midst of ignoring such a provision already in our federal statutes forbidding repeal of the monopoly exemptions for the insurance industry. In fact, the provision mentioned may even be modeled on it. Still, the provision is arrogant and an acknowledgment of the unpopularity of this bill. It has no place in it and folks should raise hell over it. what you want to bet the LSM won’t even mention it?

The fact that the Congress does so many things that are un-Constitutional now tells me that ANY future Congress change whatever they want (or what we want, yeah, I know, wishful thinking) – but hell yeah, you are right that this is one arrogant and outrageous bit of tyranny.

Just a technicality, Curt, but the “cannot repeal” language relates to the existance and recommendations of the IMAB… which is the current version of the IMAC panel legislation, originally written by the WH, that I posted on August 8th.

But the fact it relates specifically to this appointed panel of quasi-czars (confirmed but requires extraordinary legislative action to buck their “recommendations”) doesn’t make binding future Congressional bodies any less horrific an interpretation of Constitutional powers.

But then, these do-good power mongrels been getting away with assumption of powers for so long, there are few with the cojones to buck absolutely the halls of Congress.

What should be required weekly viewing for every Congressional member, and a part of the US civics classes (if they still have them at all) is Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. We need about 500+ “Mr. Smith’s” now… big time. View some excerpts below, and imagine a Congress filled with men of principles… measures funded properly too (Boys camp was a loan being paid back by the Ranger scouts themselves)

words carved in stone… a lot of hooey…

From the below compilation of clips:

(4:25) “I always get a great kick out of that part of the Declaration of Independence. You’re not going to have a country that can make these kind of rules work if you haven’t got men who’ve learned to tell human rights from punch in the nose”

~~~

(6:00) “There’s no place out there for graft… or greed… or lies. Or compromise with human liberties. And if that’s what the grown ups of this world have done with what was given to them, then we’d better get those boys camps started fast to see what the kids can do. And it’s not too late because this country is bigger than the Taylors, you or me or anyone else. Great principles don’t get lost once they come to life. They’re right here. You just have to see them.”

It’s certainly sleazy, but it has been done before. By Republicans as well as Dems.

Gabe over at Ace of Spades has the breakdown.
http://ace.mu.nu/

Two other points. First, Senator DeMint may be peeved with the parliamentarian over this, but the parliamentarian is probably right. ReidCare does not overthrow the Senate Standing Rules, something that–according to the Standing Rules–requires a vote of sixty-seven senators. Rather, it makes an exception to the Standing Rules for a few specific provisions of ReidCare. Making exceptions to rules only takes a simple majority.

Second, 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.

And before someone jumps on me for it, I’m not saying ReidCare is a good thing or that I approve of this provision, which will make it more difficult to undo the damage. I’m saying that it’s not unconstitutional or all that unusual for the Senate.

For a look at what might NOT be the constitutional aspects of the bill, try here:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php

Has liberty become too precious to leave in the hands of the people? Is freedom reduced to entitlement slavery? Is the value of your life decided by a government committee? Are your children and grandchilren nothing more than fodder to feed the DC Money Machine. Has God been dethroned from the position of Creator to just a moral concept free to be disposed of when inconvenient. Did my father and thousand of other fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters and sons die in vain for this festering mob of pickpockets who are determined to rob us of our very heritage? It’s up to all of us to answer the question, fully counting what it may cost us to act in a way that Americans would.

Don’t care which party does it, @Patvann. For one body of Congress to forever place any legislation – in part or the whole – off limits by a future Congress is seriously questionable as a Constitutional concept.

I agree Mata. My point was only that it’s not unprecedented. Sleazy, dirty, scummy, disgusting, abuse-of-power, yes, absolutly.

It now goes into reconciliation. If it stays there past the 19th of Jan, and Brown can win in Mass, this Bill is gone. It is our only hope at this point.

@Patvann:

It now goes into reconciliation. If it stays there past the 19th of Jan, and Brown can win in Mass, this Bill is gone.

Pat, I’m not sure about that.

It is my understanding that whatever emerges from the reconciliation process will require only a simple majority vote in both houses.

Am I incorrect?

The clown known as Harry Reid doesn’t realize that his actions may cause the next revolution and that he could be prosecuted and imprisoned for life once the dust settles.

@Aye

A conference report is still a piece of legislation. A conference report, reconcilation bill, or whatever you want to call it, it is not exempt from a Senate filibuster. Not unless it is in their rules that prevents a conference report from being filibustered.

Florida has been trying to secede since 1861, and it’s assured we’re going to keep on trying.
I’m still under the bridge on the Suwannee, in my own personal secession. Today’s menu is 2 bluegills and a beef jerky.

I don’t care if it has been done before. . .multiple wrongs do not make a right.

Warning: There are citizens so angry with this Congress/President. . .there are open air discussions of how to bring down the country(heard today at a grocery store check-out line, Rush Limbaugh’s show, and in waiting room of a oil change store),. . .they feel they have nothing to lose at this point. . .

These politicians who think the average citizen is taking this lightly — needs to think again. . .DeMint is being applauded but also criticized for not going far enough. . .and Harry Reid, et al, should start looking for another job. and/or a good attorney.

Jim DeMint — God Bless You! ramp it up!

Obummer and Company are now showing their TRUE colors…. Socialist Dictators…. there is no other explaination for the stuff they are now doing…. they KNOW they were only going to get one shot at this crap before the people woke up and started tossing them out…. so they want to spike the “laws” (EDICTS!!) they pass so as to make them irreversable?!?!?!?! ….. I have never in my life (51 years) or in my study of history EVER seen the like of this!!! Trials ought to be held, and maybe some necks stretched….. THAT is how evil and grievous I see this as… My God!!!

Banish the rest to a Commie Country of their choosing, maybe they would feel more at home THERE!!

I’m tired of being polite….this is no longer a slide into socialism. . .this is turning into a push for communism.

Suppose that a future Senate, presumably controlled by Republicans, determined to enact legislation that effectively repealed the offending section. Reid seems to be setting up a situation where such an action would violate the Senate’s own rules. Since the Courts will not review a claim that a legislative body acted ultra vires or outside of its own rules, the future Senate could get away with that action if the statute were otherwise properly enacted. All a Court could do is to determine which of the conflicting laws was valid and it would do so by attempting to discern the legislative history of the two statutes, which, in theory, would shed light on what the Senate intended in each instance. As there is no legislative history on this particular section, that would be a blind alley. However, a subsequent Senate could “make” legislative history by stating in the record that the intention was to repeal the prior statute. As long as the subsequent law was approved by the House and signed by the President, I don’t see how the subsequent legislation would be held invalid on the basis of such a limiting provision in the earlier statute. I think it is fundamental that a legislative body can always revisit its prior actions.

Disturber

I am Ozymandias the Great.
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and Despair.
Naught else beside remains.

One of my favorite sonnets.
And appropriate in the case of this tyrannical usurpation of power, too.

This is patently absurd. Future Congresses are not legally beholden to follow past (wrongheaded) Congressional legislation that declares that “(future) Congresses can not repeal the legislation that a past Congressional body made. What are these people, five year olds?

“Oh yah! Well, we just made a rule that you can’t overrule our rules, so nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyaaaaah, nyah!”

Future Congresses can ALWAYS pass legislation that overrules past legislation, so long as it is not a Constitutional Amendment.

But wait! they can ALSO overrule that too by passing yet another Constitutional Amendment. (remember Prohibition?)

Either Harry Reid is a bigger fool than we give him credit for. or the people who believe these political tricks are fool-proof are, or maybe it’s both. I can’t honestly believe that anyone takes this seriously.

CONGRESS MIGHT PASS THE HEALTH BILL WITHOUT VOTING ON IT: A STEP CLOSER TO TYRANNY

There was a time when I wouldn’t believe that members of congress would be so out of touch with the American people that they would have to resort to underhanded tactics to thwart the will of the people.

Well, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is thinking of doing just that. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) came up with what is now known as the “Slaughter Solution” or “Deem and Pass” that will let the House of Representatives deem the Senate Health Bill as passed in the House without any representative voting on it. Once they use this outrageous procedure, the house leadership can then have additional language inserted into the bill that will satisfy those House Democrats who oppose the bill in its original form.

Meanwhile, in order for Senate Democrats to be able to use the Reconciliation procedure – a procedure that circumvents the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster – the House must pass the Senate Bill ‘as is’, with the exact same wording, before changes can be made. However, the Democratic leadership in the House doesn’t have enough votes to do that and one of the biggest reasons is that the Senate Bill has a provision that allows for taxpayer funded abortions.

I believe that the Slaughter Solution is not only dishonest and smacks of dirty tricks, but I also believe that it is unconstitutional as is most of the legislation that congress has passed in recent years. Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: “…the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively…” This newly invented “Slaughter Solution” clearly does not allow this type of procedure.

The Democratic leadership in the Senate has tried to assure the Democratic leadership in the House that if the House simply passes the bill as it is, the Senate will make changes amenable to the House after the fact. Pro-life House members, led by Bart Stupak (D-MI) are balking at this assurance and pointed to the hundreds of House bills that are currently still wallowing in the Senate. He also wants to see the changes in writing as he doesn’t trust his own party’s leaders.

If the Democratic leaderhip in the Senate imposes the ‘Reconciliation Rule’ to pass this bill, unfortunately for them, that alone will not be enough to get the bill passed. The reconciliation procedure, also known as the ‘Byrd Rule’ named after Senator Robert Byrd, is already extremely controversial. Senator Byrd is on the record in Congress saying his rule was “Never intended” to pass this kind of legislation, so the House leadership appears ready to adopt the Slaughter Solution instead. If the Slaughter Solution is instituted, the House of Representatives will actually pass the almost $875 billion bill without the members of the House actually voting on it. This is outrageous and smacks of something we would expect from the Russian politburo or a marxist dictatorship.

Although the “Slaughter Solution” or the “deem and pass” rule has been used in the past, it has never been used to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Nancy Pelosi said she is considering for a House vote, but she added that she prefers this method because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure. What an outrageous statement, particulalrly in view of constitutional requirements of Article I, Section VII, Clause II previously mentioned in this article.

There is also a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK (97-1374), that said each house of Congress must approve the exact same text of a bill before it can become law. A self-executing “deem and pass” rule would sidestep that requirement, former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell said in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed and it would be unconstitutional.

The American people have overwhelmingly rejected this bill, but the President and the Democrat leaders in both houses of congress seem intent on using misinformation, lies, deceit, bribery and any other questionable and unconstitutional procedure to ram this socialist legislation down the throats of the American people without a public discussion of the merits. Why?

We are fast approaching a point of no return in America. If our Marxist President and the Democratic-Socialist leadership in congress are successful in passing this Health Bill, they will be emboldened to pass other critical legislation on their agenda to bring a free America to its knees. If the Health Bill is passed, they will quickly move to pass an all-encompassing Amnesty Bill, followed by a massive Cap and Trade Bill, a National biometric ID Card Bill and then the takeover of America will be almost complete. All that will be left is for them to come for our guns.

Let us remember that at critical points in human history, only a few generations have been given the honor and privlege of defending ‘Freedom’ in its maximum hour of danger.

In 1776, our founders’ generation were given the honor and privlege of defending ‘Freedom’ in its maximum hour of danger, which resulted in the birth of this great nation that is still a beacon of hope to the freedom loving people of the world.

The generations of World War I and World War II were also given the honor and privlege of defending ‘Freedom’ in its maximun house of danger.

Today in America, we again find ourselves in a critical point in history, for ‘Freedom’ once again is in mortal danger, just as it was in 1776 and in WWI and WWII. Our generation is facing a different kind of mortal danger to our “Freedom’ because that danger is not coming from some foreign country, king, dictator or enemy combatants, but it is coming from our own federal government.

Our Founders told us that “Governments get their just powers from the consent of the governed and whenever the government becomes destructive of these ends, it is not only the people’s Right, but it is their sacred Duty to change the government. “

In 2010, we are now the generation that has been given the honor and privlege of defending ‘Freedom’ in its maximum hour of danger and this is our time to perform that sacred duty. We must stand up, speak up and be willing to actively resist the growing unconstitutional actions of the our federal government that puts the interests of government leaders and the oligarchy ahead of the interests of the people. By definition, this is tryanny.

Let us act before it’s too late, not just for ourselves, but for our children and our children’s children. I pray to God that we will be successful, for the free people of the world are depending on us.

GOD BLESS A FREE AMERICA !!!!!!

John Wallace
http://www.TeaPartyRep.com

The argument that “the Republicans did it as well” is fallacious on its face.

Cite me one clear example where the Republicans did it on legislation as major and far-reaching as this! The rule was designed for certain circumstance and within certain limits and as far as I know the Republicans stayed within those boundaries. The Democrats are throwing out all boundaries and using this in a manner it was never meant to be used. That is the bottom line.

They condemned the Republicans with fury when Republicans merely threatened to use the nuclear option to stop unwarranted Democratic obstructionism of Bush appointment. Yet here they are using that very nuclear option to muscle through something the American public has made crystal clear it doesn’t work. Since they lack the votes to go it right, they are now misapplying parliamentary rules to get their way. They will never have the moral credibility to ever question anything the Republicans do again, ever!

Instead of “draining the swamp,” Pelosi and company have made it even deeper, sleazier, and fetid than it has ever been with the help of their messiah, Barry Sotero (Obama). We need to make a point of making them regret it come November.