This is the $64000 question (or in today’s world, $64 Trillion). Is passage of Obamacare inevitable?
Some say yes and some say no, it’s not inevitable. Time will certainly tell, but I’d say chances are better that 90%. However, we can’t live our lives on … dare I say it? … HOPE! To hope that this foray into socialism won’t happen isn’t a plan. You can be certain the Democrats aren’t ‘hoping’ they will have the votes so it will pass.
The Dems have approached this legislation very strategically. I think they were taken aback in August by the ferociousness of grassroots opposition from the ‘tea parties.’ However, by November, they decided to ignore their constituents’ protests an just push forward. This point was made abundantly clear this morning when Sen. Jim DeMint (R – SC) read the provision Sen Harry Reid (D – NV) slipped into the bill prohibiting repeal of certain provisions of Obamacare by future Senate:
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.”
My first thought upon hearing of this was “how can any Congress write a law prohibiting future Congress’ of repealing said law?” DeMint goes on to call this a “rule change;”
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.
I still say “how can any Congress write into any bill a provision that prohibits future lawmakers from changing or repealing that law?” Even amendments to the Constitution can be repealed, e.g. the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment which introduced Prohibition.
Back to my main point; The Dems have been very strategic in their approach but it doesn’t appear the Republican are being strategic in either their opposition to the legislation nor in plans to challenge Obamacare in court once signed into law. Lastly, the Reps need let the Dems know that a major effort will be undertaken to repeal this monstrosity beginning Jan 3, 2011. Maybe the GOP doesn’t want to telegraph their moves, but their past actions couldn’t be termed ‘strategic’ by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess we can HOPE!
UPDATE: I was too quick on the draw about work being done on the legal side.