Much was made of Obama's "Constitutional Scholar" status during the campaign, and it gets brought up by progressive friends whenever I make constitutional arguments against Obama/Pelosi/Reid's political agenda.
Of course, I counter that I read Alinsky, but not because I'm a believer -- it's because I need to know my enemy's tactics and weaknesses. So I believe it is with Obama and the Constitution.
Obama is clearly an Alinskyite. Look at his biography. Alinsky was the original "Community Organizer", Obama was a "Community Organizer" and has shown respect for Alinsky by name. And he follows his tactics.
Whatever means necessary is a central part of the philosophy.
And so we have flat out lies on the campaign trail, flat out lies about what the health care bill has in it and what it doesn't and what it will cost and what its effects will likely be. Not that it's right, but that stuff happens all the time.
What's even more worrisome is the utter disregard for the design of the legislature shown by the willingness to seriously consider (it remains to be seen if they'll try them) "passing" the legislation without getting the required number of votes on it (pass it as part of a recociliation "bill"), or without even voting on it at all.
Oddly, I remember some of the initial ridicule of the Tea Party movement was that we were ignorant because the original Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, and, after all, we have representation.
It looks to me like we have people who, if the rules governing "representation" get in their way, they'll find a way to circumvent it.
And this brings me to unintended consequences.
The rules which would allow the Dems to circumvent normal House rules for passing legislation were introduced as exceptions to rules which were probably introduced to help push things through where there was clear general agreement and little to no controversy -- to make the lives of our congresscritters easier. They don't actually have to take time out of their 5-7 hours a day soliciting donations or attending fundraiser dinners to go vote on things. And I'm sure when these exception-to-the-rules rules were passed, everyone was assured that they would never be used to pass actual bills in a manner inconsistent with original intent.
When we bring up potential for abuse, we are ridiculed. Sarah Palin spoke of "death panels" to the haughty derision of government health care proponents. "It's not in the bill", or "it was only meant to do this little harmless and helpful thing, nobody would ever interpret it that other way."
If we can pass this controversial and sweeping legislation using one of those processes, they why use any other method for anything, ever? If this is the way things can be done, this is the way things will be done and our Constitution effectively means nothing anymore.