Tuesday, December 22, 2009

The Democrats' Assault On Deliberative Democracy

"Democracy go to hell" - that's the message from our far left Democrats today. The latest comes from Harry Reid's insidious machinations in the Health Care Bill. According to Hot Air, buried deep within the bill is a provision that would require a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate " to overrule the bill’s rationing board, the Independent Medical Advisory Board, whose purpose (stated on page 1001) is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” In legalese, this is known as "entrenchment" - i.e., placing a condition within legislation to make it more difficult for the same body acting in the future to amend or repeal a provision. It is of dubious constitutionality.

A supermajority is only constitutionally required for four things: to override a Presidential veto (Art I, Sec. 7); to make binding a treaty signed by the President (Art I, Sec. II); as part of the process of amending the Constitution (Art. 5); and to declare a President disabled and unable to discharge his duties (Amendment 25). At no other place in the Constitution is anything other than a simple majority authorized or required.

U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. 5 provides "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . ." The Senate has formed its rules into a book called "The Standing Rules Of The Senate." It provides at rule 22 that to end a filibuster requires three fifths of the Senate (60 votes) "except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds [67] of the Senators present and voting . . ."

Reid wants to insure that when the backlash to our far left socialists comes starting with next year's election, that the Health Care bill remains a 'bridge too far' to amend or repeal by the normal democratic process. He seeks to accomplish this by changing a Senate Rule. Yet because he cannot possibly get 67 votes for his proposed change, he has slipped it into the Healthcare bill which will likely soon pass by a simple majority vote.

This is a patent violation of Senate Rule 22. Yet you can listen to the video below as the Democrats take the position that the change proposed in the Healthcare Bill is only to "procedure," not to a "rule." In so doing, they create a distinction utterly without a difference and continue their destruction of deliberative democracy in America. Moreover, since Senate rules are Constitutionally obliged, Harry Reid's unilateral negation of the rules ought to be unconstitutional. That said, given our Supreme Court's penchant for rewriting the Constitution per their whim, its constitutionality must remain an open question.

I look back to the Bush days when the far left charged the right with destroying the Constitution. In each instance, the basis for the charge was that the Bush Administion did not agree with the far left's radical reinterpretation of Constitutional provisions. The MSM provided the far left with constant repetition of their message, while the right responded weakly and, even then, was given little play in the media. Looking back on that time with the benefit of a comparison to what the far left is doing today, even a blind man could see what an utter canard that was. There is no force on this earth more inimical to democracy and the text of the Constitution than Obama and the far left who hold the reins of power in America today. And in their effort, the far left continues to enjoy near unanimous support of the MSM.

I do hope Republicans are paying close attention. The far left is playing for keeps. If Republicans listen to the MSM noise machine and do not fight these anti-democratic socialists with equal ferocity and utter ruthlessness, America will lose. Bipartisanship under the Obama administration is naught but an empty concept used by Democrats to beat conservatives over the head for failing to fully acquiesce to the far left's blueprint for American national suicide. We are in a zero sum war for the future direction of this country, if not its very soul.


suek said...

It seems to me that if the GOP can regain the majority, the first thing they need to do is to give close examination to the Birth Certificate issue.

I know that there are those who say everything's hunky dory, and there's no basis for claims that O is ineligible. That may be true. But given the major changes the Dems are imposing on us, it's at least worth a shot to determine if perhaps O is not legitimately able to sign such bills into law.

And as a yummy dessert - should such be proven - investigate the Dem Party power team that knew it and deliberately concealed it, and throw them into jail for the rest of their natural lives. In fact, I'd be all for trying them as traitors, but that probably wouldn't wash.

OBloodyHell said...

sue, while I suspect there is something particularly embarrassing in the "long form" birth certificate -- my money is on "father: 'unknown'" -- I do not believe for an instant the claim that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.

There has been reprinted a newspaper blurb from the time which no one has disputed the veracity of -- and the birth notice specifically states the date and place of his birth. This "birth notice" newspaper entry is from 1959.

Now, there is EXACTLY one reason why his birth in Hawaii might be relevant -- and that's not to his citizenship. He had that already through his mother, regardless of place of birth.

The only possible argument for establishing his birthplace in the USA back in 1959 -- the only place where it matters IN THE LEAST -- is if you are going to be running for PotUS.

Now, go ahead and tell me that, in the climate of the late 50s, that someone seriously thought that, within fifty years, a half-black boy would have a serious chance to become PotUS -- especially a woman with the postmodern liberal anti-american background that Obama's mother had.

What you have here is a flat out ridiculous improbability -- someone who would not for a moment believe that her son could seriously become PotUS in a "racist place like the US" (not entirely incorrect, mind you), creating a fiction whose only reason for existing would be to support that effort.

Now, unless you're really, really seriously ready to also claim that Obama IS the anti-Christ, I'm not buying a conspiracy that long-thinking, that precise, and that capable of success.

Are you going to buy into it?

Now, I'm curious what is in the long-form BC that he's hiding, but I'd put long -- very long -- odds against it being "birthplace: 'not in USA'".

It's something which would be embarrassing for sure, but, as I say, it's more likely to be something that makes him "illegitimate", just not in the sense of "eligibility for PotUS"

My recommendation -- drop this line of argument. I believe it is not only hopeless but also has a tendency towards discrediting you as a reasonable source of argument or debate.

It doesn't mean you can't ask for the information -- just don't express, regardless of my having convinced you directly that I'm correct -- the idea that it's going to actually somehow negate his actions as PotUS after the fact.

That ain't happening even IF it turned out that he was born in Kenya.

Ymarsakar said...

Don't broadcast your true intentions to the enemy. Instead, play dumb or act innocent. Then if you do find something worthwhile, sneak up to the enemy and stab them in the kidneys.

Ymarsakar said...

Essentially, that is.

cdor said...

Agree with Bloody. His Mom was an American...Obama is an American, unless, as an adult, he denounced his citizenship. People have a right to bitch, but this goes nowhere now. It could have been a motivating factor to vote against him in the election, but due to the obfuscation in the media this issue is beyond its time. Let's spend our energy changing Congress and vote the sucker out of office in 2012.

cdor said...

Back to GW's post, there are four years before this bill actually enacts the "benefit" part of the legislation. Providing we can keep the makeup of the court the same, there is time for law suits challenging contitutionallity. Although it is less likely that we can win back the Senate, we could, by election, eliminate the super majority of 60 votes in 2010.

suek said...

I'm well aware of the "anti" positions. I'm also aware of the basis for the claims of his ineligibility and feel that there is good reason to consider them.

That said, I have no intention of going into the pros and cons of the whole thing - it makes no difference if there is no means of doing anything about it, and unless Congress gets involved, there probably isn't. I know there's still a court case with a hearing in early January, but I'm not particularly optimistic about it.

I do think that an investigation is warranted, that's all. If a _full_ investigation is done, then let the chips fall where they may.