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 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 can't remember where I first heard the idea that "If you want to pass some law, you'd better think about what happens when someone who doesn't like you is in charge." I wonder if Reid & the Evil Party have considered what happens when the Stupid Party has the majority and decides to do something like this; be real interesting when the Evil Party minions scream "WRONG! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!" and the reply is "Then why did you back Sen. Reid doing this and have no protest? Now sit down and shut up."