LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

Email: "DeMint: Dems Illegally Sneaking Senate Rule Alterations Prohibiting Changes to Health Bill"

Your Email:

Your Name:

Send To Email:

Subject:

Message:
Final Senate health vote now expected Christmas Eve morning BY LifeSiteNews.com By Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., December 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) on Monday called Democrats to task for sneaking alterations to the Senate rules deep into the amended Reid health legislation - some of which would serve to make it illegal for the Senate to alter the bill in later sessions. Legislation that includes Senate rule changes require a 2/3 majority of Senators for passage. Yet Democrat leadership maintains that only 60 votes will be needed to pass the bill, not 66. DeMint challenged presiding officer Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on the Senate floor over several provisions, saying they "not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules, and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth." One such rule DeMint read, regarding subsection C in Section 3403, states: "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," said DeMint. "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." Section 3403 governs the highly controversial Independent Medicare Advisory Board - labeled the "death panels" in some circles - whose authority the manager's amendment drastically expanded. The National Right to Life Committee warns that the board's power will even infringe upon "the ability of private citizens to spend their own money to protect their own lives, by obtaining health care, or health insurance, that is not rationed." The following paragraph, however, appears to allow a waiver of the prohibition against repealing subsection C with a 3/5 majority vote, stating: "This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn." "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule," DeMint continued. "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 purposes of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses." Merkley replied to DeMint's inquiry by stating that the amendments in question do not change standing rules, and therefore do not require the 2/3 vote. DeMint strenuously objected. "I've been in Congress eleven years, I have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before," he said. "This seems to be a redefinition of words, in my mind. It's clear that the parliamentarian is going to redefine words, as I'm afraid he's done as part of this process before. ... Mr. President, it's clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them." When Parliamentarian Alan Frumin illegally cut off a Republican stall tactic last week, DeMint complained to the Washington Times that the majority party had "a parliamentarian in their back pocket." Merkley asserted after DeMint was finished that "it is quite common to include provisions affecting Senate procedure" in legislation. "Is there a difference between Senate procedures and rules?" DeMint asked. "Yes," Merkley replied. "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?" "That is correct." "Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if we can redefine them?" DeMint concluded. The exchange was deeply alarming to Eric Ericson, who tore apart the provisions and the Democrats' dissembling on the rules change on the popular RedState blog."Why in God’s name would the Senate Majority Leader want to make the Death Panel regulations the only thing in the Obamacare legislation that is not subject to amendment, repeal, or change by the United States Senate?!" Ericson exclaimed Tuesday.He noted that, "to my knowledge and the knowledge of those who I have consulted with on this issue, there has never been any legislation passed by the Congress with a prohibition on future Senates considering changes to previously enacted laws or regulations.""When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover," said Ericson.  "The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare." See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: Mistrust Among Senators Thickens as Bill Hurtles Toward Christmas Eve Vote http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09122108.htmlMinority Leader Fumes: No One Has Been Allowed to See Health Care Bill http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121704.html http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/demint-dems-illegally-sneaking-senate-rule-alterations-prohibiting-changes-/

Please enter the word you see in the image below: