What will happen if the Vote for Obamcare is delayed until....

[ReaganForRushmore]

after the 2010 off year elections? Any lame duck Dems who were defeated in their respective House
elections could just say screw you and vote Obamacare in? Am I thinking too much?

[rich_t]

after the 2010 off year elections? Any lame duck Dems who were defeated in their respective House
elections could just say screw you and vote Obamacare in? Am I thinking too much?

November is a long way off.  I don't think the vote will still be pending for that long.

But I may be wrong.

[formerlurker]

He has to get it done before he loses seats in Congress.  It will be Obama who will be the lame duck if he doesn't deliver to his base prior to November midterm elections.

[rich_t]

He has to get it done before he loses seats in Congress.  It will be Obama who will be the lame duck if he doesn't deliver to his base prior to November midterm elections.

He is already a lame duck.

[NHSparky]

The punditry of late has opined that if Obamacare is passed the Dems lose 50 seats.  Even if it isn't, they're estimating a 40-seat loss.

Either is enough to shift the House back to the Republicans.

[thundley4]

The punditry of late has opined that if Obamacare is passed the Dems lose 50 seats.  Even if it isn't, they're estimating a 40-seat loss.

Either is enough to shift the House back to the Republicans.

The Dimrats have decided that losing 50 seats and ramming their socialist agenda through is the best course for them. They know if they don't do it now, they never will be able to do it. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

If the Clinton's didn't do it in 1994, I highly doubt 0bama will have the cojones to try it.

[NHSparky]

If the Clinton's didn't do it in 1994, I highly doubt 0bama will have the cojones to try it.

Never confuse excess of balls with lack of brains.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Rich is right, this is going to be decided one way or the other loooong before the elections.

[dutch508]

In addition, the bill has laguage that makes it illegal for the congress to change it once it's passed into law (ie, once the dems loose 50 seats in congress come November). See Malkin's blog for details.

[BlueStateSaint]

In addition, the bill has laguage that makes it illegal for the congress to change it once it's passed into law (ie, once the dems loose 50 seats in congress come November). See Malkin's blog for details.

That right there will be called unconstitutional, and with good reason--it is.  And with Obama's slap at the SCOTUS in the SOTU (and again, from what I hear, last week), don't think that if they get Obamacare before them, that the SCOTUS wouldn't strike it down in its entirety.  Maybe 6-3, maybe even 9-0 as a way to say to the Executive Branch, "Don't **** with us."  The lefties on the bench may be lefties, but they value judicial freedom more--because they know that the Left will be on the short end of the stick again, probably a lot sooner than the lefties on the SCOTUS want to happen.  If ObamaCare goes through without being struck down, they know that things will escalate in the US to the point that the Rwandan Civil War of 1994 will look like two Boy Scout troops playing paintball, in comparison.  They do not want that to be their legacy.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Like BSS said, any such language is totally meaningless, legally.  Unfortunately, outrageous illegal provisions in a law are only pruned back to the extent necessary to otherwise pass muster by the courts, they don't get to shitcan the whole thing unless the rot runs clear through it, and this is just a an excess procedural pimple on the butt of the whole monster.

[formerlurker]

The slaughter rule:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/15/the-slaughter-rule-yet-another-reason-obamacare-will-be-unconstitutional/

[ReaganForRushmore]

The reason I asked the question of this august group of thinkers is that the Dems do not have the votes
as of now to pass the bill. As it stands now, the Nays have 212 (source, The Hill) votes. The nays only need 4 votes to defeat the bill.

Speaker Pelosi is no dummy, if she feels that the bill could be massaged to be passed after the mid terms
and the results are in. I could see Pelosi tabling a vote until after the election and then putting it up for a vote....and I can see recently defeated Dems being promised lucrative "Lobbying" positions for their post Congress careers. Don't think that Obama is not capable of doing such deals.

As to the legislation that inhibits future Congress in amending or eliminating bad law, case precednt already exists that one Congress can't force a new Congress by beholding to one Congress's decisions.

[Freeper]

In addition, the bill has laguage that makes it illegal for the congress to change it once it's passed into law (ie, once the dems loose 50 seats in congress come November). See Malkin's blog for details.

That right there shows their contempt for the system the founding Fathers gave us. If they had intended congress to make laws that couldn't be changed we wouldn't have needed amendments to the constitution. They simply would have passed laws saying we have free speech, gun rights, etc. The founding fathers foresaw that things could change and left it so laws could be changed if needed. They also recognized that certain rights will never change and they put those in the constitution.

The democrats are overstepping their powers blatantly and as far as I am concerned every one of them that support this need to be impeached.