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


Monday, December 21st

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:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”
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:
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
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:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.

UPDATED: A number of people on our side are saying I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue. I hope they and you, after reading this, will read this response to that criticism.
For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.
————————————————————————————-
7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senator from south carolina.
DEMINT
mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
without objection.
DEMINT
parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it does.
DEMINT
further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that would require a two-thirds vote.
DEMINT
i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions
and rules changes?
i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because
there were rules changes included in them?
7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
DEMINT
okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced
under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding
rule 15 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. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the
bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but 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. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
DEMINT
okay. mr. president –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “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 the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it is quite common to do that.
DEMINT
i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.

7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
7:41 PM
DEMINT
is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
yes.
DEMINT
and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that is correct.
DEMINT
then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow

The new socialism

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, December 11, 2009

The new socialism

In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hardworking citizens of the democracies to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama's cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d'etat served as the administration's loud response to Webb: The hell we can't. With this EPA "endangerment" finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There's the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society -- as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based -- you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

Individual Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

Its an Unconstitutional Mandate and here is why

When Nancy Pelosi was asked where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, she dismissed the question by saying, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

According to CNSNews, her press spokesman said that this authority comes from Congress’s “constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.” However, as a new legal memorandum from Heritage points out, Speaker Pelosi is completely wrong: The individual insurance mandate is both unconstitutional and unprecedented.

There is no question that the Supreme Court has upheld extensive regulation of economic activity through the Commerce Clause, but it has never upheld any requirement by Congress that an individual participate in economic activity.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to punish you if you don’t engage in commerce. Liberal law professors and editorial writers such as Erwin Chemerinsky of UC-Irvine and Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post try to gloss over this point, and won’t admit that the Supreme Court has never approved any such requirement.

The new Heritage paper points out that the penalty imposed on individuals who don’t comply with this mandate is also a capitation tax, and therefore unconstitutional, because it is not assessed evenly based upon population.

The paper also explains why a federal mandate to buy health insurance would be totally different from state requirements to buy automobile-liability insurance. The federal government does not have the inherent police powers of the states that authorize such mandates; the state requirements are imposed on those who engage in a voluntary activity (driving a car), while the health-insurance mandate would be imposed on everyone; you only have to buy liability insurance if you drive on public roads; and finally, states only require you to get insurance that protects third parties that you may injure through your driving — you are not required to buy insurance to protect yourself from injury or your own car from damage.

If Congress can impose a health-insurance mandate, then there is no limit to what Congress can do, and the Constitution’s limits on congressional power will have essentially been eliminated.

As Will Rogers once said, "with Congress, every time they make a joke it’s a law, and every time they make a law it’s a joke".

Unfortunately, none of us will be able to laugh over this pending abuse of power.

.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"mind set"

Not understanding the "private" sector could be a problem?? Perhaps the "mind set" that government has the solution to all the problems??

Nick Schulz posts a great chart showing the degree of private sector experience of presidential cabinets going back to Teddy Roosevelt:

Less than 10% of the current Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector.

If Truman Had Taken WWII as Seriously as Obama Takes the War on Terror

By Doug Patton Monday, December 7, 2009

Imagine for a moment President Harry Truman addressing cadets at on his strategy for finishing World War II:

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our efforts against Japan in the Pacific — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.

To address these issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in the Pacific in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On December 7, 1941, naval forces of the Empire of Japan used their aircraft to murder nearly 3,000 people when they attacked our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Unfortunately, when we declared war on Japan, the decision also was made to wage a second war, in Europe, against Nazi Germany. For three years, the war in Europe drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that decision to go into Europe, against a force that never attacked us, caused substantial rifts between America and the rest of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the war in Europe to a responsible end. But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Europe, the situation in the Pacific has deteriorated, and throughout this period, our troop levels in that region have been insufficient to bring this war to a conclusion.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send additional troops to the Pacific. However, after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

I do not make this decision lightly. We have been at war now for three long years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over the war in Europe have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.

And having lived through the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

As we end the war in Europe, and focus on a reasonable timetable for withdrawal from the Pacific, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides the foundation for our power. That’s why our troop commitment in the Pacific theater of operations cannot be open-ended.

From now on, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. Where Japan and her allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether on Iwo Jima or the Philippines or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

We’ll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. We have to forge a new beginning between America and the Asian world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values. That is why I have prohibited the mistreatment of prisoners and closed our POW camps. We must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and respect the dignity of all peoples.

We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.

Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America!

Can you imagine such a scenario?

No, neither can I.

Men don't follow titles; they follow courage.

From RedState.com

Instead of using every trick in the book to defeat Sen. Harry Reid's government-run health plan, Senate GOP leadership is idly sitting by while Democrats tweak the bill to buy off votes. Instead of doing everything in its power to block a bill that is solidly opposed by more voters than not, Senate GOP leadership is allowing Sen. Reid to process amendments and move the trains as if this bill, the largest government takeover of the private sector in American history, represented nothing out of the ordinary. With each passing amendment, Democrats become closer and closer to buying off the all-important 60th vote.

To fully grasp the near-criminal ineffectiveness of the party's current strategy, just peruse the following news stories and ask yourself, "Do narratives like these increase or decrease the likelihood of Senate approval of government-run health care?"

• AP: "The 61-39 roll call Thursday by which the Senate adopted an amendment to safeguard coverage of mammograms and preventive screening tests for women under a revamped health care system."
• Reuters: "U.S. Senate bolsters preventive care for women"
• Bloomberg: Senate Approves Plan to Boost U.S. Mammogram Testing

Top GOP leaders have mistakenly convinced themselves that the key to defeating the bill is to process a number of Republican "messaging" amendments while letting Democrats offer whatever amendments are necessary to buy 60 votes.

There are three fatal problems with this strategy: 1) leadership insists on pushing its own too-clever-by-half "message" instead of listening to the clear message faxed, e-mailed and phoned to every elected official in Washington ("KILL THE BILL!"), 2) as evidenced by the articles above, the current "messaging strategy" is an abysmal failure, and 3) by allowing amendments to be processed at no cost to the majority party, GOP leaders are merely greasing the skids for government-run health care.

In the movie "Braveheart," William Wallace tells Robert the Bruce, a noble who had the desire but not the guts to do the right thing, "Men don't follow titles; they follow courage." It would be refreshing to see more of the latter from those with the former in the United States Senate.