Is the "Super Congress" Committee unconstitutional?

[RecoveringNeoCon]

I was under the impression that this "Super Congress" committee was grossly unconstitutional. Earlier on Freedom Watch, the judge implied that it was also incredibly unconstitutional. The following New American article seems to say the opposite:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/8335-qsuper-congressq-proposed-to-fast-track-debt-limit-increases

"The Huffington Post also noted: "This 'Super Congress,' composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers."

Of course, the type of fast-tracking being discussed is constitutional — even if it is unwise. The U.S. Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings," (Art. I, Sec. 5) and choose its own officers (Art. I, Sec. 2 and 3). Congress has long chosen to fast-track (allow no amendments) for most treaties and trade agreements that have been negotiated over many months, in order to avoid sending negotiators abroad again to renegotiate the agreements."

So its constitutional?

[Chester Copperpot]

Unconstitutional.

[Aratus]

super congress committee = senator mitch mcconnell = semi~unconstitutional ...?

[AuH20]

Super Congress Committee = a vote evader. Nothing more. They know their fate.

[Aratus]

if they blame 5 to 15 of their number
for all nitty gritty decisions, they think
at least 400 to 500 of their number may
get themselves re-elected in a big way?

[sevin]

if they blame 5 to 15 of their number
for all nitty gritty decisions, they think
at least 400 to 500 of their number may
get themselves re-elected in a big way?

That's it exactly. 12 people who don't care about getting reelected would be in the super congress, make deals and do whatever is asked of them. Then all the other reps can say they had nothing to do with it. Sickening.

[virginian8v]

There's a petition to quash the "Super Congress" plan. If you oppose this plan, please sign and share: http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-congress-and-the-president-to-reject-the-idea-of-a-dangerous-undemocratic-super-congress-now

[Rael]

It may not be a wise plan, but I believe it is constitutional.

[Badger Paul]

It's probably Constitutional given both Houses can set their own rules and committee structures (plus parties themselves aren't mentioned). But it is unethical as hell and if the rank n' file has any balls whatsoever they'll revolt against this dictatorial control mechanism.

[DamianTV]

If this so called Super Congress must abide by the system of Checks and Balances, it probably wouldnt be so bad, however, as we all know, anything the congress does to give itself more power is done so with any form of accountability to the people what so ever.

Essencially, what they are doing is electing themselves to Royalty status and believe that they do not have to answer to the People.

[libertyjam]

As far as I can see from what I think as has been presented,
I am going against the flow on this one, as long as final bills go for an up-down vote before both houses of congress and sent to President I don't see how it could be unconstitutional. "Congress may determine rules of its own Proceedings".

I see nothing done here that has not been done fully constitutionally before. You do not need an Const. amendment to decide that other members cannot alter or amend bills as presented to Congress, it is strictly a procedural issue.

How many times have people argued on these very forums for a 'no pork added to bills' type amendment for Congress where all bills would be subject to a procedure exactly like this and all bills would go for a straight up-down vote just like this calls for? Yet now someone pushes a button and the outrage is manufactured on demand with little thought at all, exactly as we accuse our opposition of doing time and time again! Simply because someone labeled this
group as a 'Super Congress', where did that label come from? A media person in all likelihood?

[brushfire]

They go from trying to concentrate power into the presidency into trying to concentrate power in the congress.

[KingRobbStark]

The committee itself is constitutional, but the shit they'll be allowed to do is definitely not constitutional .

[-C-]

This is what? 3 weeks late and you guys had to hear it from the HP? lol...

[Aratus]

super congress committee = senator mitch mcconnell = semi~unconstitutional ...?


Super Congress Committee = a vote evader. Nothing more. They know their fate.


It may not be a wise plan, but I believe it is constitutional.


They go from trying to concentrate power into the presidency into trying to concentrate power in the congress.


The committee itself is constitutional, but the shit they'll be allowed to do is definitely not constitutional .

we frame the basic question as to what drives this dialogue and we also have hypothetical answers

[Aratus]

I was under the impression that this "Super Congress" committee was grossly unconstitutional. Earlier on Freedom Watch, the judge implied that it was also incredibly unconstitutional. The following New American article seems to say the opposite:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/8335-qsuper-congressq-proposed-to-fast-track-debt-limit-increases

"The Huffington Post also noted: "This 'Super Congress,' composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers."

Of course, the type of fast-tracking being discussed is constitutional — even if it is unwise. The U.S. Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings," (Art. I, Sec. 5) and choose its own officers (Art. I, Sec. 2 and 3). Congress has long chosen to fast-track (allow no amendments) for most treaties and trade agreements that have been negotiated over many months, in order to avoid sending negotiators abroad again to renegotiate the agreements."

So its constitutional?


if they blame 5 to 15 of their number
for all nitty gritty decisions, they think
at least 400 to 500 of their number may
get themselves re-elected in a big way?


That's it exactly. 12 people who don't care about getting reelected would be in the super congress, make deals and do whatever is asked of them. Then all the other reps can say they had nothing to do with it. Sickening.


There's a petition to quash the "Super Congress" plan. If you oppose this plan, please sign and share: http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-congress-and-the-president-to-reject-the-idea-of-a-dangerous-undemocratic-super-congress-now


It's probably Constitutional given both Houses can set their own rules and committee structures (plus parties themselves aren't mentioned). But it is unethical as hell and if the rank n' file has any balls whatsoever they'll revolt against this dictatorial control mechanism.


Unconstitutional.


If this so called Super Congress must abide by the system of Checks and Balances, it probably wouldnt be so bad, however, as we all know, anything the congress does to give itself more power is done so with any form of accountability to the people what so ever.

Essencially, what they are doing is electing themselves to Royalty status and believe that they do not have to answer to the People.


As far as I can see from what I think as has been presented,
I am going against the flow on this one, as long as final bills go for an up-down vote before both houses of congress and sent to President I don't see how it could be unconstitutional. "Congress may determine rules of its own Proceedings".

I see nothing done here that has not been done fully constitutionally before. You do not need an Const. amendment to decide that other members cannot alter or amend bills as presented to Congress, it is strictly a procedural issue.

How many times have people argued on these very forums for a 'no pork added to bills' type amendment for Congress where all bills would be subject to a procedure exactly like this and all bills would go for a straight up-down vote just like this calls for? Yet now someone pushes a button and the outrage is manufactured on demand with little thought at all, exactly as we accuse our opposition of doing time and time again! Simply because someone labeled this
group as a 'Super Congress', where did that label come from? A media person in all likelihood?

someone's PR person definately came up with this... clearly

[Paul Or Nothing II]

That's it exactly. 12 people who don't care about getting reelected would be in the super congress, make deals and do whatever is asked of them. Then all the other reps can say they had nothing to do with it. Sickening.

^^

[Brian4Liberty]

My take:


There are two separate bodies in Congress. Official mergers of the two may not be Constitutional. Isn't the House of Representatives supposed to create the Bills, and then the Senate is the smaller, elite Body that also deliberates and votes on them?

Other issues with this:

- It is an attack on junior members of Congress like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and the Tea Party in general. They want to take away their input and ability to do anything.

- If a smaller group coming up with a plan is such a good idea, then why was the bipartisan "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" (Debt Commission) ignored by everyone, especially by Obama who initiated it in the first place?

- Is it Constitutional (or correct) to write the Democrat/Republican duopoly into law? Are the Democrats and Republicans established somewhere in the Constitution as the official Parties?

- States Rights: Which States will lose representation by not having any members on this Super-Congress?

[amonasro]

I think "Super Senate" has a better ring to it.

[erowe1]

This is what? 3 weeks late and you guys had to hear it from the HP? lol...

How is it 3 weeks late? I just heard Boehner talking about this very thing on Limbaugh a couple hours ago.

[Brian4Liberty]

Bump for Super Congress.

[Imaginos]

Does the Sun rise from the East?

[acptulsa]

Everyone who ever died fighting for this nation's freedom has now officially died in vain. Period.