Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Debt Deal “Super Congress” is Super Unconstitutional
scottfactor.com ^ | 08/04/2011 | Gina Miller

Posted on 08/04/2011 5:08:51 AM PDT by scottfactor

As if trapped in one of those awful nightmares where we try to run from the bad guys and we find we can’t lift our feet, we continue to watch in terrific horror as our federal government fully morphs into a communist dictatorship, while we can do almost nothing to stop it. It is apparent that the communist Democrats of the Obama administration will not be checked. What unconstitutional moves will they not make? Who will restrain them? Is it possible that they could ever speak with anything other than lies? Sadly, the answers to all those questions are nothing, no one, and no.

So, now we have the so-called “debt deal” out of Congress. Those of us who truly watch, knew they would do it. We all knew the sham proceedings would only lead to the very thing we demanded not to happen. This was no victory for the Tea Party (what a load of bunk!). This was a victory for Big Government and a monumental loss for We the People.

Does anyone believe that there will be any real reduction in government spending, when all is said and done? Oh, I know that among the uninformed and misinformed, there are those who do. But, we’re seeing this already-monstrous debt ceiling being immediately raised, while these paltry, so-called “cuts” are strewn out over a decade, and that means they may not even happen, because no future Congress is obligated to honor them.

What’s the deal? In reality, when we look at the black and white of it, the citizens of America are getting one of the biggest shafts the government has ever shoved at us, and tacked on to that wicked shaft is a brand-new, powerful committee that is a dream-come-true for any Constitution-hating communist.

The truth of this wretched scheme was stated nicely on The Economic Collapse blog site in a column titled, “The Debt Ceiling Deal from Hell.” The opening paragraph declares,

“Is the debt ceiling deal supposed to be some sort of a cruel joke? Is this what the American people have been waiting months and months for? The ‘debt ceiling deal from hell’ is a complete and total fraud. Barack Obama will not need to worry about the debt ceiling again until after the 2012 election, and no ‘real’ spending cuts will happen until after the 2012 election. The way the political game in Washington D.C. is played today, if you don't get something right now, you probably will never end up getting it. The Republicans have traded a massive debt ceiling increase right now for the possibility of very skimpy budget cuts in the future. Meanwhile, this deal establishes a new ‘Super Congress’ that threatens to fundamentally alter our political system (and not in a good way). The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle. That is a complete and total lie.”

So, what about this new “Super Congress”? It is a bipartisan committee of 12 Democrats and Republicans from both Houses of Congress that is assigned the task of deciding on 1.5 trillion dollars in spending cuts, spread over a decade, by a Thanksgiving deadline. What’s wrong with that? Just a few very significant things are wrong with it. As reported last week by the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim,

“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. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the ‘super committee’ -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.”

Oh, yeah. Who needs that old “traditional legislative process”? Here again we see the power-mongering loons on Capitol Hill spitting on the Constitution. Any “recommendation” by this Super Congress would not be allowed to be amended or filibustered by the real Congress. This is a nightmare!

Appearing on Fox New with Shepard Smith, Judge Andrew Napolitano had these strong words concerning the new Super Congress. Smith asked him to explain how this new Super Congress may be unconstitutional, and he replied,

[Audio]

“Well, because members of the Senate and members of the House have the opportunity under the Constitution to debate items that are sent to them and to modify items that are sent to them. To force them to vote just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with no debate, not to follow the rules of the House, which permits amendments, not to follow the rules of the Senate, which permits a filibuster, is such a substantial removal of the authority the Constitution gave them, that this legislation is treading in waters which might not be constitutional.

Stated differently, the legislation will so change the relationship of Congress to this group by creating a new group. It will take power from Congress and give it to this group, and the Congress can’t do that.”

Then, Smith asked whether or not it mattered that the group is made up of members of Congress, and Judge Napolitano said that it does not matter. He did point out that although Congress has delegated some of its authorities to governmental agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, the distinction here is taxation. As the Judge stated,

[Audio]

“This field, which is taxes—there’s another part of the Constitution that says only the Congress can decide what taxes are. Only Congress can spend money. There are members of Congress walking around as we speak, saying, ‘There’s a rumor that this group of 12 could raise or lower taxes.’

If members of Congress think that they are losing the power to decide what the tax rates should be, then they’re creating a monster, which the Constitution doesn’t authorize.”

Once this committee is formed, there are those who fear further unconstitutional power grabs. Among those fears are that the Super Congress could basically bypass Congress with Second Amendment attacks. The Gun Owners of America released an alarming statement just prior to final passage of the debt raw deal,

“Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Both houses of Congress will be voting on a debt ceiling bill that establishes a legislative committee with TREMENDOUS powers. Fox News is calling this committee a SUPER CONGRESS, because its legislative proposals (which could include gun control provisions) CANNOT be filibustered or amended in the Senate or House.

To understand what a huge deal this is, consider that House Speaker John Boehner is able to keep a mountain of gun control bills from coming to the floor of the House. That’s the power of the Speaker.

And in the Senate, we have been able to kill much of the gun control agenda by filibustering legislation (that is, requiring the Majority Leader to get a supermajority or 60 votes in order to pass gun control).

The most recent example of this occurred earlier this year when we defeated a radical, anti-gun judicial nomination (Goodwin Liu) using the filibuster. The filibuster has been our saving grace in the Senate, but that could be tossed within the next 24 hours.

Regarding the debt ceiling compromise, here’s what one legislative analyst (inside a Republican office on Capitol Hill) had to say:

Right now, we have limited protection from the schemes of the left – even if they have some Republican support, we have a speaker who wouldn’t bring horrible bills to the floor, and we have the Senate filibuster.

Both of these are rendered moot by the Super committee. There is NO Senate filibuster on the product they report. The Speaker CANNOT stop a vote in the House….

[Hence], 22 liberal Republicans can join the Congressional Democrats and the President in: Closing the gun show ‘loophole,’ banning semi-automatic weapons, creating a national handgun registration, or ordering state gun laws moot.

A super highway for gun control legislation? This is incredibly unconstitutional! We don’t elect a Congress, which can then turn around and elect a SUPER committee. We need to make sure this never lands on the President’s desk.”

Well, we now know it’s a done deal. What the end result of this Super Congress will be remains to be seen. If enough Constitution-honoring lawmakers hear from America about this, perhaps they will take a second look at this extra-constitutional committee. Surely future action could undo this bad idea.

Meanwhile, in our American nightmare, we continue trying to flee the developing dictatorship in Washington while our legs are fixed to the spot like lead weights as the communists continue their inexorable march toward us.


TOPICS: Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: congress; deal; debt; supercommittee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2011 5:08:57 AM PDT by scottfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

“our federal government fully morphs into a communist dictatorship, while we can do almost nothing to stop it. “

They’ve been at it too long - Soviets have been in our State Department for 65 years. Our schools have been Socializing us for almost a hundred years.


2 posted on 08/04/2011 5:15:09 AM PDT by RoadTest (Organized religion is no substitute for the relationship the living God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

If we let this “Super Congress” stand without a loud and prolonged protest, including a march by the millions on Washington, we will lose the remnants of the Republic in our brief lifetimes.


3 posted on 08/04/2011 5:15:20 AM PDT by Big_Harry (Ecc10:2 "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
I have paltry enough representation in COngress as it is, with three of the 535 allegedly representing me, and one patently at odds with the other two.

Raise my taxes in some 'supercommittee/SuperCongress', and odds are I will have been taxed with no effective representation at all.

No taxation without representation!

Now, where have I heard that before?

4 posted on 08/04/2011 5:18:23 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
"The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle. That is a complete and total lie.”

The key point. We lost. The Tea Party lost. We lost badly. We got nothing at all -- but now, any subsequent bad news is 100% our fault, because we "won".

Obama's chances for re-election, while still not good, increased quite a bit when the debt deal went through.

5 posted on 08/04/2011 5:19:12 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
After Baraq Hussein mohammed 0bama got his Death Panels, the next logical step was to gain full control of the people. The "super congress" will allow that and gun control will only be the first step.

Take Back AMERICA! Restore The Constitution!
FUBO GTFO 2012 !

6 posted on 08/04/2011 5:20:26 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Napolitano is wrong again (.

It is a bad idea but only a total moron would claim it’s unconstitutional for a House to “make it’s own rules”.

This legislayion doesn’t bind any future congress of course.
But unlike “the cuts!, the cuts!” in the debt bill it doesn’t claim to.


7 posted on 08/04/2011 5:22:36 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

“Super Congress”

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et al, are spinning in their graves.

Start plucking the chickens and boiling the tar. It’s time, Patriots, it’s time.


8 posted on 08/04/2011 5:23:14 AM PDT by panaxanax (0bama >>WORST PRESIDENT EVER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
So, they let the whole issue of “Barry and the Forty Czars” slide why shouldn't they do a little unconstitutional stuff for their on benefit?
9 posted on 08/04/2011 5:24:04 AM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is insane but kept medicated and on golf courses to hide it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

We’re getting awfully close to having to use the 2nd Amendment for its original purpose.


10 posted on 08/04/2011 5:24:28 AM PDT by wolfpat (Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. -- Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Other articles have been saying not to be alarmed because if the committee deadlocks, the automatic defense cuts won't come until 2013 and can be reversed by the next Congress. That is cold comfort, but it still focuses on the revenue actions of the committee. This article raises the specter that other permanent legislative matters could be run through the same protected committee process and fast tracked into law.
11 posted on 08/04/2011 5:27:11 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Marine_Uncle; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; ..
RE :”Stated differently, the legislation will so change the relationship of Congress to this group by creating a new group. It will take power from Congress and give it to this group, and the Congress can’t do that.

The super-congress is cowardly and unlikely to succeed here but it is constitutional and takes NO powers away from congress. Congress passed the law making these rules and they can pass another that gets rid of them, or they can remove the trigger.

They removed the ability to debate these recommendations from ‘individual members of congress’ not the congress as a whole.

If fact what would happen if at the end of next year one house decided to ignore the law and voted on the super-congress recommendations and allowed debate and amendments on it anyway? It's not like they would be told by the courts what to do. All this law does is impose the trigger based on specific conditions.

12 posted on 08/04/2011 5:27:40 AM PDT by sickoflibs (If you pay zero Federal income taxes, don't say you are paying your 'fair share')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
So is a number of things they have been doing since a majority of the the voters put their messiah in the White House. And since no one in a position of authority wishes to stop them . What is one more thing?

The Republicans? As has been demonstrated by te debt increase deal, they are co-conspirators. The sheep? They are too busy watching American Idol, America's Got Talent, and Can You Dance?

13 posted on 08/04/2011 5:28:58 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
The whole government is unconstitutional. Franklin is famously quoted describing our newly framed government as "A republic, if you can keep it." We couldn't. Much as it is fashionable to look down upon Judge Taney and his Dred Scott decision, he essentially wrote that our government was constituted by a class of people with a common heritage for themselves. Some of us who came later adopted that heritage. But now most who come here reject it. The Torah contains all sorts of curious prohibitions upon mixings. One shouldn't mix milk and meat; or wool and linen. It's not clear why. But I think Judge Taney knew.

ML/NJ

14 posted on 08/04/2011 5:36:31 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

“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.”

When I heard Rush say yesterday that “America is over” I was at first shocked that Rush would say something like that. But now I understand what he was talking about. When both parties agree to this “Super Congress” a party of 6 plus the President as the tie breaker, who would make the final decision when the full body cant decide, we are truly going down a very dark path.


15 posted on 08/04/2011 5:37:27 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

later


16 posted on 08/04/2011 5:39:10 AM PDT by quintr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson November 13, 1787
17 posted on 08/04/2011 5:40:44 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
The super-congress is cowardly and unlikely to succeed here but it is constitutional and takes NO powers away from congress. Congress passed the law making these rules and they can pass another that gets rid of them, or they can remove the trigger.

Thank you for some sanity.

While it is a way to shield individual members from any legislation enacted as a result of this "super-congress", it was created by congress, with the approval of congress.

It is just like the base-closing commission that is created to shield members from local retribution.

There are plenty of unconstitutional actions taking place, like the Executive Branch ignoring court orders, Fast & Furious, EPA over-stepping its boundaries, etc.

18 posted on 08/04/2011 5:44:53 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

I cannot believe that the other members of Congress who will not be on the Super Committee allowed this to happen.

They just had what little power they had taken away at the drop of the Presidential pen.

The fact is we need them to show up once a week to vote yay or nay and otherwise they may as well stay home. The Super Committee is in charge.


19 posted on 08/04/2011 5:50:49 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I would be most alarmed by the prospect that non-financial legislation could be moved through this super committee with no opportunity for the regular committee process, no amendments and forced whole Senate and House votes. All sorts of “progressive” ideas could be run into law quickly.
20 posted on 08/04/2011 5:51:18 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle.

Haven't heard anyone say that.

“Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms …

Wouldn't pass in the house.

21 posted on 08/04/2011 5:51:35 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
RE :"Thank you for some sanity. While it is a way to shield individual members from any legislation enacted as a result of this "super-congress", it was created by congress, with the approval of congress. It is just like the base-closing commission that is created to shield members from local retribution."

When Bush was POTUS Dems were constantly accusing Republicans of 'shredding the constitution'. Now that Obama is president Dems never mention constitution and some Republicans want to call everything Obama does unconstitional which gives cover for when the government does stuff that really should be pointed out as unconstitutional, it makes the term meaningless to cry wolf all the time.

You cant say it's unconsitutional because it takes powers from the congress and that its not binding on a new congress at the same time.

22 posted on 08/04/2011 5:59:19 AM PDT by sickoflibs (If you pay zero Federal income taxes, don't say you are paying your 'fair share')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Raise my taxes in some 'supercommittee/SuperCongress', and odds are I will have been taxed with no effective representation at all.

Exactly. Unless your congressman is on the Super-Congress, there's no need to bother voting.

The Constitution created a contentious Congress - a VERY contentious Congress. This debt deal drastically reduces the contentiousness. And apparently our congressmen and many FReepers are smarter than the founders.

(I suppose that should put my mind at ease, but somehow it just doesn't.)
23 posted on 08/04/2011 6:03:49 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

I don’t like the debt ceiling deal, but nothing about it is unconstitutional.

Obamacare and its mandates,
the war in Libya,
Obama’s “czars”,
Fast and Furious,
the Stimulus bill,
etc

ARE unconstitutional and each is worse that the debt ceiling bill.

I don’t like the debt ceiling bill because it was a missed opportunity to create fiscal responsibility. It has instead become a means by which democrats, the media and establishment republicans can marginalize the TEA party. If Congress had simply removed the debt ceiling altogether it would have had the same effect.

But the debt ceiling bill does not conflict with the letter of the Constitution


24 posted on 08/04/2011 6:03:53 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Of course it’s unconstitutional, then things won’t get done like they want.


25 posted on 08/04/2011 6:05:40 AM PDT by swatbuznik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Everyone has an anal orifice and an opinion.
26 posted on 08/04/2011 6:07:58 AM PDT by verity (The Obama Administration is a Criminal Enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; sickoflibs; Erik Latranyi

Doesn’t sound unconstitutional to me either, just stupid.

What do you think, counselor?


27 posted on 08/04/2011 6:11:44 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

No taxation without representation!

I think the corallary should be “No representation without taxation.”


28 posted on 08/04/2011 6:13:11 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

simply an attempt by the powerful socialist blue states to subvert the will of the people in the conservative red states.

Ultimately, as the Tea Party gains traction in Congress in the years to come, they will try this mechanism to dilute the Tea Party power.


29 posted on 08/04/2011 6:15:38 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
The "Super Congress" is quite similar to an administrative rule-making agency, unaccountable.
30 posted on 08/04/2011 6:16:40 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

It may be used this year for that purpose.
The Senate is rejecting House bills that cut (the FAA bill is currently at that impasse), come super-committee report time most or all of the budget may be in limbo and up for grabs.

‘May’: there are a lot of issues involved.


31 posted on 08/04/2011 6:26:10 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
In reality it's simply a "planning tool" and an excuse for very nice buffet working lunches.

Neither house is required to abandon the right to make yet other rules ~ and there is no way any of this can be enforced.

It's as phony as a "cut" taking place 10 years from now.

32 posted on 08/04/2011 6:41:23 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Raise my taxes in some 'supercommittee/SuperCongress', and odds are I will have been taxed with no effective representation at all.

Wrong.

Everyone needs to stop acting like liberals and spout hysteria that is not based in fact.

While I do not like this "Super Congress", no taxes will be increased unless a majority in the House votes for it, which means YOUR representative will get to say "yes" or "no".

The asinine statements flying around here make FReepers look like idiots.

33 posted on 08/04/2011 6:44:48 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Impy
Doesn’t sound unconstitutional to me either, just stupid.

Yes, its a childish way to avoid blame.

We all know this "Super Congress" will be unable to agree on anything. If they do, it will be shot down in the House.

Therefore, the automatic cuts will be the actual cuts, but they are not cuts at all.

34 posted on 08/04/2011 6:47:05 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
I would be most alarmed by the prospect that non-financial legislation could be moved through this super committee with no opportunity for the regular committee process, no amendments and forced whole Senate and House votes. All sorts of “progressive” ideas could be run into law quickly.

For this to happen, you will need at least one Republican on the "Super Congress" to agree with the liberals. Then, you will need a majority in the House to vote in favor of such legislation.

The House is fairly solid and hangs together (unlike the Senate) and there is no danger that progressive legislation will be passed.

Let's stop the hysteria. We all know the automatic cuts will enacted even though they are not real cuts.

Let's focus on real issues like Fast & Furious, Obamacare, drilling, etc.

35 posted on 08/04/2011 6:51:13 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
This is just a ruse so that the blame for everything that happens between now and the 2012 election can be placed on only those 12 congresscritters and especially the six repubs.

A reelection strategy by the gutless compromisers, libtard and rino.

36 posted on 08/04/2011 6:54:07 AM PDT by CPOSharky (The only thing straight, white, Christian males get is the blame for everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I think we would do well to retain the ability to fillibuster measures. In the absence of that, we have given up a strategic weapon. Rubberstamping some 'done deal' isn't my idea of representation, unless, of course, I aproove of the deal.

As if Washington D.C. needs another backroom to conduct business in.

37 posted on 08/04/2011 6:54:41 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
YOUR representative will get to say "yes" or "no".

And that's ALL he'll get to say.
38 posted on 08/04/2011 6:59:06 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
“hysteria?” Remember your Soma when “unexpectedly” bad things happen and the GOP disappoints, again.
39 posted on 08/04/2011 7:13:00 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

I’m asking, so don’t just all over me anyone, but how does this committee differ from, say, the military base closure committees in the past that gave a recommendation list which couldn’t be modified, only voted up or down?


40 posted on 08/04/2011 7:35:31 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
I think the corallary should be “No representation without taxation.”

Wouldn't the 'usual suspects' howl at that!

Everyone needs some skin in the game: dump the current income tax, go to a retail sales tax which exempts primary housing, food, home-use energy, and medical care.

Then they can get a clue why we are griping.

41 posted on 08/04/2011 7:50:59 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
"I’m asking, so don’t just all over me anyone, but how does this committee differ from, say, the military base closure committees in the past that gave a recommendation list which couldn’t be modified, only voted up or down?"

One or possibly two major differences. First, the failure to approve the supercommittee recommendations will trigger a broad based sequester of defense and non-defense funds, and second, some writers/analysts like the author at the top of this thread think the committee could originate and send to the House and Senate legislation that is unrelated to the original financial savings mission. That legislation would be subject to the same protections against amendment and the normal committee process and require an up or down vote by both bodies.

42 posted on 08/04/2011 7:52:38 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Okay. Thanks.


43 posted on 08/04/2011 7:57:43 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Rubberstamping some 'done deal' isn't my idea of representation, unless, of course, I aproove of the deal.

It's just another base-closing commission.

44 posted on 08/04/2011 9:35:17 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I reckon we’ll see.


45 posted on 08/04/2011 10:08:33 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional. All tax and spending bills will still have to be approved by Congress. And if Congress legislates to limit debate (and not allow a filibuster on) the proposal that comes out of the commission, then that’s fine and dandy, since each house gets to set its own rules and they each agreed to change them for this particular issue. This is similar to the base-closing commission, which was empowered by Congress to make recommendations, which were subject to approval by both houses on an up-or-down vote.


46 posted on 08/04/2011 10:49:16 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

“the failure to approve the supercommittee recommendations will trigger a broad based sequester of defense and non-defense funds”

Those broad-based cuts were already approved by both houses of Congress in the bill that was signed into law this week. The commission merely will make a recommendation to Congress that will replace the apprved across-the-board cuts with other cuts, which will be subject to an up-or-down vote in both houses.


47 posted on 08/04/2011 10:52:50 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

True, but it is a 6 of one 1/2 dozen of another situation. This is the IED to try and force committee consensus and is an integral part of the super committee mechanism.


48 posted on 08/04/2011 10:58:56 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Let them howl. We should have been howling years ago when the Communists began their takeover of our schools and media. Nobody howled and those that did were ridiculed, think McCarthy, and we ignorantly carried on as if there were no threat. We find ourselves today with one of our parties completely in the hands of socialists, at best, or communists, and the other heavily infiltrated. We, the people, are being called terrorists because we want our country and its rules back. Please pray often for our country as we are in very perilous times and we will need God on our side to get through them.


49 posted on 08/04/2011 11:47:42 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
RE: "All this law does is impose the trigger based on specific conditions."
That is a good way of looking at it.
50 posted on 08/04/2011 12:10:26 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....Duncan Hunter Sr. for POTUS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson