Illegal “supercommittee” pushes secret farm bill that will cost billions

[John F Kennedy III]

Illegal “supercommittee” pushes secret farm bill that will cost billions

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
November 17, 2011

The concentration of elite legislative power in America is well under way today as the new “supercommittee” is working on an end-run around Congress to put together a “secret farm bill” that would prop up failed agricultural policies with yet more billions in taxpayer dollars.

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/11/01/183214-super-committee.jpg

The “supercommittee” is the newly-formed (and utterly illegal) committee of 12 members of Congress who engineer new debt-related legislation that’s only allowed an up or down vote by the full Congress. This bypasses the traditional debate process by elected representatives, effectively concentrating the power to shape laws in the hands of a mere dozen members of Congress. The very structure is elitist from the start, and it directly contradicts the United States Constitution.

Because the committee concentrates yet more power in the hands of the few, it is being heavily lobbied by various groups and industries that want more government handouts. The farming industry, of course, is lined up at the trough of government slop just like everyone else, and this secret farm bill could cost taxpayers billions of dollars in government subsidies that are tied to commodities prices (which are extremely volatile and could unexpectedly rise).

Bypassing representatives to concentrate power with the elite

What this latest move demonstrates is that the supercommittee will now be used as a way to bypass the rest of Congress with yet more bloated government spending legislation that puts America further into a debt hole that increasingly appears to be headed toward total financial collapse.

That this is all being done without open debate in Congress, and without any public scrutiny of the actions of the 535 members of Congress is yet another disturbing sign that the very fabric of power in America is being deliberately destroyed and re-concentrated into the hands of the few — the “global elite” who now consider themselves kings who rule over the slave masses.

Read more at TheHill.com:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1… (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/193581-secret-farm-bill-primed-for-passage-in-debt-deal)

America needs hemp farming, not more bailouts for growing low-value crops

Of course, the ultimate farm bill for America would be the legalization of industrial hemp farming — a move that would unleash a whole new era of agricultural abundance across the nation.

Presently, the USA imports thousands of tons of hemp products each year from Canada, China and other countries. These products include hemp seeds, hemp fibers, hemp clothing and hemp oils. Why on earth is it illegal for U.S. farmers to grow these products when we import them from Canada anyway?

If anybody in Washington could pull their head out of the clouds, they would legalize hemp farming for American farmers. So instead of farmers earning pennies a bushel for growing corn or soybeans, they could earn dollars a bushel for growing hemp. This would put hundreds of millions of dollars back into the economy and create new jobs in farming, agriculture and hemp products. Legalizing hemp farming is the ultimate “jobs bill.”

Better yet, hemp grows without pesticides and requires little to no chemical fertilizers, either. It’s environmentally friendly, it makes money for farmers, and the demand for hemp products is absolutely huge.

The U.S. Constitution is written on hemp. Sails and ropes from the ships that brought America’s original explorers were made out of hemp, and the earliest renditions of the U.S. flag itself were also made out of hemp. Ever wonder why? Because hemp lasts! It’s more rugged than cotton and far easier to grow and harvest.

So why isn’t hemp legal in America? And why is the supercommittee in Congress secretly scheming behind closed doors to spend even more taxpayer money propping up a failed agricultural subsidy system that traps farmers in financial slavery while denying them the freedom to grow a crop that’s just begging to be met with additional supply?

The answer is simple: Because the U.S. government doesn’t want Americans to have economic freedom! And the DEA, in particular, doesn’t want to give up its tyrannical power over everything related to marijuana.

Yet another reason to rise up against tyranny and government oppression

If the People of America are to have any hope of restoring their freedom to farm, freedom to garden, and freedom to consume plant-based medicine, they are going to have to take those freedoms back (with protests and Free Speech, not with violence) and remind the government that it has no right to tell the People what they can or cannot grow on their own land, with their own hard work.

Heck, the U.S. military is in Afghanistan right now helping the locals grow heroin crops! This is on the record. It was openly reported on Fox News by Geraldo Rivera. Watch the video report here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-b…

So why is the U.S. government guardian opium farms in Afghanistan while criminalizing industrial hemp farming in America?

Because Washington is insane, of course. Agricultural policies are set not to help the American farmer, but to centralize power in Washington and either criminalize or financially enslave as many American citizens as possible. It’s all about stripping power away from the People and delivering it to the hands of the few.

Once again, the only man who takes a consistent stand against all this insanity is Rep. Ron Paul. If you support the legalization of hemp farming, the legalization of food freedom and the ending of the ludicrous “war on drugs” and all the millions of innocent people rotting in our prisons today for merely growing and selling a medicinal plant, then your only logical candidate is Ron Paul.


http://www.infowars.com/illegal-supercommittee-pushes-secret-farm-bill-that-will-cost-billions/

[Rael]

There is nothing "illegal" about the supercommitee. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...". Further, there is a long history of Congress utilizing these types of joint committees.

The "supercommitee" is formally the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction. Presently, there are 5 other active joint committees: Joint Economic Committee,Joint Committee on the Library, Joint Committee on Printing, Joint Committee on Taxation, Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

You can argue that the supercommitee is a bad idea, and I would agree, but it's not "illegal".

[HOLLYWOOD]

Political Prostitutes... were else can you sellout anyone, with their money, for your own job and political/monetary/power advancements.

We need an Iron clad Republic, not this mob rule democracy crap.

[LibForestPaul]

Political Prostitutes... were else can you sellout anyone, with their money, for your own job and political/monetary/power advancements.

We need an Iron clad Republic, not this mob rule democracy crap.

It does not work because the mob of mundanes believe their representative will drop them some free crumbs from the bread stolen off the tables of other American families; those greedy families who are not giving their fair share.

[donnay]

There is nothing "illegal" about the supercommitee. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...". Further, there is a long history of Congress utilizing these types of joint committees.

The "supercommitee" is formally the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction. Presently, there are 5 other active joint committees: Joint Economic Committee,Joint Committee on the Library, Joint Committee on Printing, Joint Committee on Taxation, Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

You can argue that the supercommitee is a bad idea, and I would agree, but it's not "illegal".

Judge Napolitano argues that the “Super Committee” is unconstitutional and he makes a solid case for his position. Check out the below clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6b13thM7JI&feature=player_embedded

As you can see by the video, this whole “Super Committee” nonsense is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. They’re not serious about reducing our debt or spending. These cuts shave only a sliver off the projected spending of the Obama administration. Overall spending still increases drastically and this is unacceptable. When congress abdicated their authority to effectively represent each of us by creating this “Super Committee” to do the dirty work they violated the constitution and not once again they are operating outside of the parameters of the document designed to limit their power and protect our rights. It’s just mind boggling why we continue to let them get away with this garbage.

Maybe I’m being naïve when I say this, but the only way I know to fix this problem is to fix it first at the local levels government. It starts with electing strong constitutional candidates on all local levels of government to include state representatives and governors. The states still have a great deal of authority granted to them by the constitution and from the states I believe the solutions to our problems can be found.

http://www.sentryjournal.com/2011/11/16/judge-napolitano-the-super-committee-is-unconstitutional/

[Rael]

Judge Napolitano argues that the “Super Committee” is unconstitutional and he makes a solid case for his position. Check out the below clip.


He didn't make a solid case at all. He said it's unconstitutional because the entire congress must debate and vote on it, well, that's exactly what will happen, because the entire congress still has to approve the recommendations of the supercommittee.

[donnay]

He didn't make a solid case at all. He said it's unconstitutional because the entire congress must debate and vote on it, well, that's exactly what will happen, because the entire congress still has to approve the recommendations of the supercommittee.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy5gTDUAp-4

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) spoke with FOX Business Network’s (FBN) Lou Dobbs about the deficit deal reached by Congress which includes the formation of a super committee to cut government spending. Paul said “I keep looking and I can’t find any place in the Constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super Congress.” He went on to say that the formation of such a committee is “monstrous.”

“You don’t get out of the problem of having too much debt by allowing Congress to spend a lot more. It never made any sense to me; it just digs the hole much deeper and then it gets harder for us to get out. It was a very easy vote for me but it became much easier when I saw the vehicle they were using to create this super Congress. Where in the world did that come from and where is that going to lead to? That is monstrous. I keep looking and I can’t find any place in the Constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super Congress," Rep. Paul said.

[John F Kennedy III]

He didn't make a solid case at all. He said it's unconstitutional because the entire congress must debate and vote on it, well, that's exactly what will happen, because the entire congress still has to approve the recommendations of the supercommittee.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

One--if the Super Congress sends a bill to the White House without passing it through both houses of Congress, it isn't a subcommittee but an unconstitutional entity.

Two--if the Super Congress includes Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (and judging by this crap, it might well) then it isn't a subcommittee of Congress.

[Rael]

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Instead of sighing, try posting some statutory or case law to support your position.

[Rael]

[video=youtube;cy5gTDUAp-4] Paul said “I keep looking and I can’t find any place in the Constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super Congress.” .

Like I already said, Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...".

[Rael]

One--if the Super Congress sends a bill to the White House without passing it through both houses of Congress, it isn't a subcommittee but an unconstitutional entity.

Two--if the Super Congress includes Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (and judging by this crap, it might well) then it isn't a subcommittee of Congress.

Neither is the case. The entire congress must vote on the final bill, and Vilsack is not on the committee.

[Brian4Liberty]

Neither is the case. The entire congress must vote on the final bill, and Vilsack is not on the committee.

Amendments to Bills are allowed by the Constitution. The Bills proposed by this new super-Committee can not be amended. This is a clear violation of the Constitution.


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.

[donnay]

Like I already said, Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...".



Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

__________________________________________________ _________

Article 1 Section 5 has no bearing on "super committee." A super committee could become a vehicle to continuously subvert congressional authority. This is a very dangerous group and is not constitutional.

[Rael]

Amendments to Bills are allowed by the Constitution. The Bills proposed by this new super-Committee can not be amended. This is a clear violation of the Constitution.

You are forgetting the fact that congress was able to offer amendments on the original bill, had a debate on it, and voted to follow this procedure. And they can still "amend" the bill in a roundabout way by voting down the supercommittee's recommendations and repealing the original bill.

[donnay]

‘Super Congress’ is Not Super. It’s Not Even Congress.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/03/super-congress-is-not-super-its-not-even-congress/

A long time ago in a political galaxy far, far away, a small band of statesman set out to create a governing charter for their newly independent nation. The document they ratified featured enumerated and specific powers for their new government, with the operative words being “enumerated” and “specific.” To the world it was a charter unlike any other, and many admired its spirit of limits, caution and restraint. In fact, the United States Constitution was properly viewed by its authors and everyone else at the time as a list, not of what the federal government could do, but more importantly—what it couldn’t.

Today, few recognize any limits on what the federal government can do. ObamaCare becomes “constitutional” because Nancy Pelosi says it is. President Obama can wage war against Libya simply because he thinks it’s a good idea.

And apparently leaders from both parties can now simply appoint special committees to supersede Congress. As part of the recent debt ceiling compromise, the newly proposed “Super Congress” would fast-track certain legislation, making it amendment and filibuster-free. If the recent debt ceiling debate saw the House, Senate and the Executive branch haggling over government spending—you know, that separation-of-powers, constitutional-balance kind of stuff, characteristic of a republic—the Super Congress would try to prevent such troublesome American democracy from happening again.

Congressman Ron Paul explained the inherent danger of the Super Congress: “The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments… Approval of the recommendations of the ‘Super Congress’ is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission—even if it includes tax increases. This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.”

The entire purpose of voters electing officials to represent them is the notion that Americans should have a voice in Washington. The Founding Fathers understood that pure democracy was as dangerous as it was impractical—but a representative republic, on the other hand, would allow a doable degree of democracy. Those behind the Super Congress have now decided that even the constitutionally proper level of practical democracy is simply too much. Or as Congressman Paul explains, this new committee represents “Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation…”

Lest anyone think this is just another committee of no special importance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sought to assure everyone that the bipartisan Super Congress’ power would be virtually unlimited. Said Reid on the Senate floor: “The joint committee—there are no constraints… They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”

When Washington leaders make excuses for increasing their own power it is always in the name of efficiency, but the Constitution’s purpose has always been to make sure government isn’t too efficient. The federal government isn’t supposed to be “virtually unlimited,” but limited. It’s not supposed to have “no constraints,” but constraints.

We don’t need a “Super Congress.” Elected officials should be forced to obey the proper rules and procedures of the plain old Congress by stuffing Washington back into its constitutional box ASAP.

Now that would be super.

[Zippyjuan]

And why is the supercommittee in Congress secretly scheming behind closed doors to spend even more taxpayer money propping up a failed agricultural subsidy system that traps farmers in financial slavery while denying them the freedom to grow a crop that’s just begging to be met with additional supply?

The farm bill propses to eliminate direct subsidies which pay farmers not to grow crops. http://video.pbs.org/video/2168076387/ Farmers are asking for free crop insurance in exchange (which at this time, the committee is not considering). They actually want to REDUCE spending by $23 billion, not to "cost billions" more.
http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=3554

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has acknowledged that a tight federal budget will mean less farm bill funding compared to previous years.

"We simply need to do more with less. We have to simplify existing programs, we need to reduce redundant provisions, and we need to put a premium on creating innovative solutions to address our current and future problems," he said.

To reduce mandatory programs by $23 billion, Vilsack added, the safety net for American farmers must be reformed.

"You don't get to $23 billion unless you substantially change the safety net. I think you are likely going to see an elimination of direct payments and a restructuring of that safety net to focus on revenue and crop insurance and risk management," Vilsack said.


Hemp is not mentioned.

[oyarde]

That dip shit Vilsack wants all kinds of control over school lunches , he says this is needed to keep health costs down for the fatties . Somebody should remind him , that if the govt did not control health care , costs would not be a factor ....

[Original_Intent]

There is nothing "illegal" about the supercommitee. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...". Further, there is a long history of Congress utilizing these types of joint committees.

The "supercommitee" is formally the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction. Presently, there are 5 other active joint committees: Joint Economic Committee,Joint Committee on the Library, Joint Committee on Printing, Joint Committee on Taxation, Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

You can argue that the supercommitee is a bad idea, and I would agree, but it's not "illegal".

Honest question: Do those other committees craft legislation that can only receive an up or down vote when being considered by the whole body? If not, I'd suggest you are muddying the water and comparing apples to oranges...

[oyarde]

The USDA should be abolished .

[Brian4Liberty]

You are forgetting the fact that congress was able to offer amendments on the original bill, had a debate on it, and voted to follow this procedure. And they can still "amend" the bill in a roundabout way by voting down the supercommittee's recommendations and repealing the original bill.

You're grasping at straws now.

[Zippyjuan]

I doubt that whatever the Super Committee comes up with will be able to pass both houses anyways. If it includes any form of tax increases, the Republicans will reject it (though Boehner is hinting he may be willing to accept some "loopholes" being closed to help raise revenue) . If it includes no taxes the Democrats will. It is an attempt to offer political cover for politians unwilling to make any tough choices on the budget.

[Rael]

You're grasping at straws now.

How so? Congress agreeing to an up or down vote is no different than one of the houses cutting off debate. They had their debate and chance to offer amendments. How is this any different than when the house ends debate and sends the bill to the floor for a final up or down vote?

[BattleFlag1776]

Maybe I’m being naïve when I say this, but the only way I know to fix this problem is to fix it first at the local levels government. It starts with electing strong constitutional candidates on all local levels of government to include state representatives and governors. The states still have a great deal of authority granted to them by the constitution and from the states I believe the solutions to our problems can be found.

There is nothing naïve about your reasoning at all. I pose the following question to all who post here: Name one agenda item that is to be discussed at the next City Council/County Commissioner's meeting where you reside. Just one is all I am looking for. Think it is not important? Tell that to Jefferson County, Alabama (home to the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history) or Lancaster, California (whose City Council just approved general-purpose aerial surveillance, regardless of whether there’s any suspicion of a crime being committed).

Take it from a guy who used to walk into these meetings unknown and walk out with my project being approved due to no opposition: Your backyard is not only the one thing you can control, it is also the easiest.

[John F Kennedy III]

How so? Congress agreeing to an up or down vote is no different than one of the houses cutting off debate. They had their debate and chance to offer amendments. How is this any different than when the house ends debate and sends the bill to the floor for a final up or down vote?

The Super Committee is UN-Constitutional. This is an established fact. Just because you refuse to believe it does not mean it is not true.

[Brian4Liberty]

How so? Congress agreeing to an up or down vote is no different than one of the houses cutting off debate. They had their debate and chance to offer amendments. How is this any different than when the house ends debate and sends the bill to the floor for a final up or down vote?

You answered your own question.

[Rael]

The Super Committee is UN-Constitutional. This is an established fact. Just because you refuse to believe it does not mean it is not true.

You have not posted any evidence to back up your assertion.

[Rael]

The Super Committee is UN-Constitutional. This is an established fact. Just because you refuse to believe it does not mean it is not true.

Still waiting for your legal cites. I'm sure you will blow me away with your understanding of constitutional law

[John F Kennedy III]

What was the point of bumping this thread?

[Keith and stuff]

This is all pointless nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Is the super committee Unconstitutional? Maybe. Does it matter no. Most of the bills signed by Obama are Unconstitutional anyway.

The super committee isn't about reducing spending. It is about very slightly reducing the massive increases in spending. That makes it just about meaningless.

Since the super committee has no power and the goal of the super committee is to do nothing, it doesn't matter.

[amonasro]

I doubt that whatever the Super Committee comes up with will be able to pass both houses anyways. If it includes any form of tax increases, the Republicans will reject it (though Boehner is hinting he may be willing to accept some "loopholes" being closed to help raise revenue) . If it includes no taxes the Democrats will. It is an attempt to offer political cover for politians unwilling to make any tough choices on the budget.

So then they're back to square one. How about a super-super committee to buy some more time?