Reid Bill Precludes Future Congresses From Repealing Portions of Obamacare

I have doubts that this is constitutional (from The Weekly Standard):

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medical Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

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 mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

It's my understanding that no Congress can place restrictions on how a future Congress must act. Once that Congressional session ends, the rules are once against adopted for the next Congress when they convene. They have the option to change or amend those rules.

And why would Reid put something like that in the law? To try and keep Republicans from repealing portions of the act should they be in a position to do so in the future (and probably the near future).

I don't think this will stand up to scrutiny.