Super Congress Will Have "Revenue" Power

[angelatc]

Straight from the mouth of Harry Reid, Cantor said that the "Super Congress" committee being assembled will have the power to raise revenue.

We already know that the Congress will have no power to decline or filibuster the decisions that the Super Congress creates.

We can assume that no TEA Party Republicans will be granted seats on this.

[LibertyEagle]

Seems like this would be unconstitutional.

[specsaregood]

Seems like this would be unconstitutional.

contstitutional? whats that!?

[Travlyr]

contstitutional? whats that!?

It is a tiny booklet from the past that leaders swear an oath to uphold and defend without reading it or understanding it.

[Original_Intent]

There is no way that, at minimum, this would not also require an up or down vote in both the House and Senate.

[Peace&Freedom]

Straight from the mouth of Harry Reid, Cantor said that the "Super Congress" committee being assembled will have the power to raise revenue.

We already know that the Congress will have no power to decline or filibuster the decisions that the Super Congress creates.

We can assume that no TEA Party Republicans will be granted seats on this.

Kind of like how no third party rep is ever on the Commission on Presidential Debates, so naturally the CPD never decides to include a third party candidate in the debates.

[specsaregood]

It is a tiny booklet from the past that leaders swear an oath to uphold and defend without reading it or understanding it.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. So what you are saying is that it is something that has been overtaken by events, by time. Following it as a guide is in fact inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore?

[libertyjam]

Straight from the mouth of Harry Reid, Cantor said that the "Super Congress" committee being assembled will have the power to raise revenue.

We already know that the Congress will have no power to decline or filibuster the decisions that the Super Congress creates.

We can assume that no TEA Party Republicans will be granted seats on this.

No power to decline? Isn't that overstating a bit? (These are rhetorical questions) All of Congress will still be able to vote no (or have to vote yes) to these budget proposal bills coming out of this super-committee, it just seems a little more arm-twisting pressure is put on them to approve them through the political parties machines.

[specsaregood]

No power to decline? Isn't that overstating a bit? (These are rhetorical questions) All of Congress will still be able to vote no (or have to vote yes) to these budget proposal bills coming out of this super-committee, it just seems a little more arm-twisting pressure is put on them to approve them through the political parties machines.

I'd say eliminating the filibuster power is a damn big issue that can't be overstated.

[awake]

That's how its done...crisis hides the power grab. The only thing super about this is that it is super foolish to consolidate power in the hands of fewer and fewer.

[libertyjam]

I'd say eliminating the veto power is a damn big issue that can't be overstated.

Who has a veto power? AFAIK the president is the only one that has a veto power. Maybe I am missing something?

[specsaregood]

Who has a veto power? AFAIK the president is the only one that has a veto power. Maybe I am missing something?

my derp, I meant filibuster. This automatically lowers the stakes from a 60vote to beat a filibuster to the most being 50 for any legislation from the super congress.

[Original_Intent]

We already know that the Congress will have no power to decline or filibuster the decisions that the Super Congress creates.



No, we do NOT know this. I'm against the super committee, but I'd like to see evidence to support this statement.

[libertyjam]

That's how its done...crisis hides the power grab. The only thing super about this is that it is super foolish to consolidate power in the hands of fewer and fewer.

Yes, I'm trying not to defend this action too much, as it seems to have only bad consequences just there seems to be an awful lot of hyperbole and misinformation on this board about it.
The only decent article that wasn't filled with mis-direction about this process that I've read so far seems to be here. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/8335-qsuper-congressq-proposed-to-fast-track-debt-limit-increases)

[libertyjam]

my derp, I meant filibuster. This automatically lowers the stakes from a 60vote to beat a filibuster to the most being 50 for any legislation from the super congress.

OK, I see that.

[Brian4Liberty]

We can assume that no TEA Party Republicans will be granted seats on this.

That is a safe bet.


That's how its done...crisis hides the power grab. The only thing super about this is that it is super foolish to consolidate power in the hands of fewer and fewer.

Yep. Consolidate power. Remove representation.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems like this would be unconstitutional.

Seems applicable to this situation:


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.

[Fox McCloud]

contstitutional? whats that!?


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

Either case this definitely doesn't seem Constitutional and would be a huge bump in Congress's power--it would also greatly minimize the influence of "lesser" candidates (like Ron Paul, etc), as there would be way more focus on the "super Congress". I really can't think of a single good thing for this proposal, especially considering those assigned to the super Congress would be party hacks and special interest sellouts (such as Reid, Boehner, etc).

[angelatc]

No power to decline? Isn't that overstating a bit? (These are rhetorical questions) All of Congress will still be able to vote no (or have to vote yes) to these budget proposal bills coming out of this super-committee, it just seems a little more arm-twisting pressure is put on them to approve them through the political parties machines.

That's not the way I understood it. But everything I've learned from this is coming from Fox News, so I'm not going to heatedly insist that I'm right on this, that's for sure. However, I definitely heard Reid say that Cantor said the committee would have the power to raise revenue.

As for the Constitutional argument...the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled on who has standing to file that type of appeal, and the answer is......nobody.

[angelatc]

Either case this definitely doesn't seem Constitutional and would be a huge bump in Congress's power--it would also greatly minimize the influence of "lesser" candidates (like Ron Paul, etc), as there would be way more focus on the "super Congress". I really can't think of a single good thing for this proposal, especially considering those assigned to the super Congress would be party hacks and special interest sellouts (such as Reid, Boehner, etc).

Well, that's because you're not a Congressman, silly. Honestly, they work so hard for us up there on the hill that it isn't fair that the voters are allowed to hold them accountable when they have to make unpopular decisions. </ end snark >