Perhaps you could explain the difference between a parliamentary rule change and a procedural clause. I think the procedural clause is simple saying the language of the reference legislative clause cannot be change, or some such.
I really don't understand Senate and House parliamentary rule well enough, or the context in which (R) Senator DeMint is attempting to challenge them to form any kind of judgment on this one, but I do know that the Republicans are trying to stall a vote on the Health Care legislation specifically by using parliamentary procedures, so I think that is what this is all about. Regards, LelandJ On 12/22/2009 12:47 PM, Publius Maximus wrote: > Get a clue, for a change, Leland. > > DeMint calls out the specific RULE the bill itself SAYS it's amending > by number, and the idiot at the gavel (who looked clueless on may > occasions) still insisted it was changing a procedure, not a rule, in > order to duck the real question, which had to do with the why-for of > 60 votes. > > It ought be offensive to you, no matter whether it's a rule or a > procedure. Reid makes your favorite punching back, Tom Delay, look > like some smiley gay square dancer in red pants. > > Oh wait, Delay made himself look that way. But you get my point. > > - Publius > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Based on my understanding of the video you provided, >> regarding Senator Jim Demint's, (R), objection, the >> legislation would not change parliamentary rule. It is a >> parliamentary procedure, and such clause are very common in >> Senate and House legislation. >> >> Of course, if there were any challenges in the future >> regarding the matter, it would be up to the Supreme Court to >> rule whether the procedure violated the constitution or no. >> If the Supreme Court ruled the procedure was a >> parliamentary rule change, or the procedure was >> unconstitutional, the clause would be stricken, and have no >> effect as law. Don't ask me the difference between a >> parliamentary rule change and a procedural clause, as I >> haven't a clue. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> >> >> On 12/22/2009 10:42 AM, Publius Maximus wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> >> [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.
