How is this 'super congress' anywhere near constitutional?

[freejack]

Isn't there a serious issue of representation here? If they let the super congress supercede the votes of my elected representative, why bother with elections at all?

WTF is this travesty?

[sailingaway]

It is a serious issue of representation, they put it in terms of 'making rules' but at some point 'making rules' can't be allowed to violate the Constitutional structure of representation. I sent emails to all my reps/Senators saying, regardless of other content, if they vote for the SuperCongress, I'm voting against them. People are letting the debate be framed in terms of the nonsense in the 'deal' when the real deal is to make the SuperCongress a star chamber with huge teeth to cover others voting for its ultimate selections, all of which will be negotiated behind closed doors with lobbyists. Anyone who votes against their 'solution' will be arbitrarily cutting medicare and military with no nuance whatsoever. And no representatives worth their salt will be picked for the establishment 'super congress'.

[CaptUSA]

Am I wrong? I thought this "super congress" would still have to submit the cuts to the full body. To me, this is nothing more than another committe. Really stupid way of governing, but I'm not sure it's unconstitutional.

Of course, I may be reading this wrong. Anyone?

[Brian4Liberty]

Am I wrong? I thought this "super congress" would still have to submit the cuts to the full body. To me, this is nothing more than another committe. Really stupid way of governing, but I'm not sure it's unconstitutional.

Of course, I may be reading this wrong. Anyone?

The difference is that no changes to the bills will be allowed. Not sure, but debate may not even be allowed. Just an up or down vote.

Also, it's an official merger of the House and Senate.

[Brian4Liberty]

It is a serious issue of representation, they put it in terms of 'making rules' but at some point 'making rules' can't be allowed to violate the Constitutional structure of representation. I sent emails to all my reps/Senators saying, regardless of other content, if they vote for the SuperCongress, I'm voting against them. People are letting the debate be framed in terms of the nonsense in the 'deal' when the real deal is to make the SuperCongress a star chamber with huge teeth to cover others voting for its ultimate selections, all of which will be negotiated behind closed doors with lobbyists. Anyone who votes against their 'solution' will be arbitrarily cutting medicare and military with no nuance whatsoever. And no representatives worth their salt will be picked for the establishment 'super congress'.

Agree.

And there's no chance that DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand or Ron will be on the super-committee.

[Elwar]

This is the same way they got out of the Declaration of War by basically declaring it by saying the president may do it at a later time. Which he did.

They are voting today to basically say "we will have no amendments to a future bill".

[erowe1]

Isn't there a serious issue of representation here? If they let the super congress supercede the votes of my elected representative, why bother with elections at all?

WTF is this travesty?


Congress still has to vote on their proposal and can vote it down. Right?

[erowe1]

The difference is that no changes to the bills will be allowed. Not sure, but debate may not even be allowed. Just an up or down vote.

So where's the violation of the Constitution in that?

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand also mentioned today that the up/down vote will be a simple majority, and that filibusters will be eliminated.

[Brian4Liberty]

So where's the violation of the Constitution in that?

How will my representative introduce legislation or amendments?

[erowe1]

Rand also mentioned today that the up/down vote will be a simple majority, and that filibusters will be eliminated.

That does seem to me like a matter of rules, and not a violation of the Constitution. They could get rid of filibusters entirely and they would still be within the Constitution. Wouldn't they?

[erowe1]

How will my representative introduce legislation or amendments?

By getting the majority of Congress to vote no along with them and start from square one.

Is there anything in the Constitution about representatives introducing amendments? That again seems like a matter of the rules that they're allowed to change.

[Brian4Liberty]

By getting the majority of Congress to vote no along with them and start from square one.

Is there anything in the Constitution about representatives introducing amendments? That again seems like a matter of the rules that they're allowed to change.

The Constitution does explicitly say that the "Senate" can propose or concur with Amendments. This new super-congress violates that process by not allowing any amendments.

No doubt Judge Napolitano will be reviewing the Constitutionality of this legislation, and he's the "expert". ;)


Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

[fisharmor]

It seems to me like an attempt to streamline the process and allow bills to get voted on much quicker.

I vehemently oppose any attempt to make the state more efficient. The constitution defines the federal government the way it does in order to make it as inefficient and chaotic as the founders could manage, in order to stop it legislating every little thing that the could conceive. It's supposed to be that way so that the organization exists when there's a huge, generally recognizable problem (like an invasion), and to prevent stuff like banning light bulbs.

I am less concerned about the state having more power: it has already arrogated power miles beyond what it is supposed to have. This sounds more like they want to start using it more often now.

[flightlesskiwi]

It seems to me like an attempt to streamline the process and allow bills to get voted on much quicker.

I vehemently oppose any attempt to make the state more efficient. The constitution defines the federal government the way it does in order to make it as inefficient and chaotic as the founders could manage, in order to stop it legislating every little thing that the could conceive. It's supposed to be that way so that the organization exists when there's a huge, generally recognizable problem (like an invasion), and to prevent stuff like banning light bulbs.

I am less concerned about the state having more power: it has already arrogated power miles beyond what it is supposed to have. This sounds more like they want to start using it more often now.

well said! +rep

[erowe1]

I vehemently oppose any attempt to make the state more efficient. The constitution defines the federal government the way it does in order to make it as inefficient and chaotic as the founders could manage, in order to stop it legislating every little thing that the could conceive.

I wholly agree about the horrors of efficiency in government.

I suppose I'm just not as sanguine about the purity of the intentions of those who wrote the Constitution as you are.