On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > And you honestly think that it is constitutionally possible to legislate > that a bill that can't be changed in any way? Trade some of your > manufactured outrage for a little intelligence.
No, Einstein, I honestly think it's thumpingly unconstitutional, and this is one of many, many ways they are breaking every rule of law and etiquette and common decency to pass this colossal mistake of bill. It doesn't do what they promise (ensure coverage for everyone, reduce costs, keep care affordable). In fact it does some very outrageous things they claim it doesn't do or insist are no big deal -- like mandating all citizens buy insurance under penalty of fines and prison, probably the most obviously unconstitutional item of 2,000+ pages of pure nonsense. It tries to legislate itself out of range of future changes by future congresses, and the estimates used to score it are so unbelievably dishonest, you can be guaranteed it will totally bust the budget and the system it claims to be fixing. This is the same crowd that seriously argued it was unconstitutional for Congress to decide NOT to fund ACORN. They don't give a flying flip for the rule of law, and must be turned out of office at the earliest electoral opportunity. The damage they are doing will take generations to repair. - Publius > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Publius Maximus > Sent: Wednesday, 23 December 2009 3:12 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: [OT] ObamaCare: Can't Touch This! > > http://bit.ly/52i1OA > > - - - > 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 explains why they're giving away the farm to bribe that magic #60. > > It's so wrong, on so many levels, I don't even know how to express my > outrage. > > - Publius > > -- > > "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, > under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object > of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to > subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign > powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of > them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be > avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose > situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful > and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
