Thanks to Peggy at Southern Illinois Catholic for posting on yet another what-would-be-considered-an-outrage-if-the-Democrats-hadn’t-already-committed-so-many-outrages-in-this-heathcare-takeover-that-our-outrage-meters-are-burned-to-a-crisp in the Senate bill.

To use shorthand of the playground, “I call no take-backs!

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

–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 congresses.


This leads me to demand that if such a provision can stick, I demand that it work for Quo Primum. Heck, if the powers that be would trade even up, I’ll call it a deal.