Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

http://gunowners.org ^ | Monday, 01 August 2011 12:07 | GOA

[556x45]

You do understand that there are plenty enough stooges in LE and our military willing to do the job. No need at all for someone from a far off land to steal your guns away.

[Mr. Mojo]

I understand that perfectly. Have for decades. But thanks anyway.

[Phlyer]

This BS of acting as if this stupid committee has some degree of power more than the whole body is just that: BS. As for calling them the "Super Congress" I strongly object to that.

Well, you can object all you want, but the bill they are about to pass says that the congress must accept or reject their 'recommendations' on how to achieve the cuts "as a whole." Do you really think that this committee - with Nancy Pelosi on it - won't add on all sorts of extraneous things that don't really have anything to do with budget cuts? After all, this bill itself is called, "TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO EDUCATION SCIENCES REFORM ACT OF 2002." They'll tag on anything they want.

And then the Congress as a whole will have the choice of accepting everything they put in there, or gutting the Defense Department completely.

The whole point of the 'triggers' in this bill is to make it so painful to turn down the Committee "recommendations" that no one will be able to do it. Saying that this committee does not 'have some degree of power more than the whole body' is like saying that the Speaker does not 'have some degree of power' more than an average Congressman.

This committee has enormous power. It is comprised on the Dim side of ruthless statists and on the RINO side by spineless sycophants of the media.

As a sign of how bad things are going to be - in terms of the RINOS being forced to accept things that they don't want in order to keep from gutting Defense - if the triggers are tripped, the Dims win both ways!. On the one hand Defense gets cut way beyond anything rational in today's world - setting up the capitulation to other one-world statists in every confrontation to come along. On the other hand Doctors and Hospitals get stiffed on bills, setting up all sorts of horror stories on how "the poor, poor, pitiful poor" can't get medical care and so we need even more socialized medicine than Obamacare already has. You wanna bet that a year after the 'triggers' are tripped we don't have a 'public option' for medical care?

This bill is a nightmare, and the Committee has the unchecked power either to dictate terms to the rest of Congress or to gut Defense spending and pave the way for socialized medicine. They may not be a "Super Congress," but it's because they're worse than that. I think Politburo is closer.

[stockpirate]

“You won’t need the 2nd amendment until they try to take it away from you.” Jefferson

[556x45]

Then whats up w/ the blue helmet thing?

[Phlyer]

I just re-read my copy of the United States Constitution.

And you think this is relevant . . . how? Recognizing that the Constitution has nothing in it about a "Super Congress" is about like saying there is nothing in Obamacare about "death panels." It doesn't mean they're not there, just that they're called something else.

In this case, this committee has the ability to dictate terms to the rest of Congress on anything they include in their 'recommendations,' and the only choice for anyone else in Congress is to accept it all, or suffer totally draconian cuts in defense, and enough cuts in payments to doctors and hospitals to set up a crisis that will guarantee we get a 'public option' tacked onto Obamacare.

Those choices are hard enough that there's no way that the average Congressman can vote down the Committe recommendations, which means that half a dozen people now wield enormous power. The only reason I wouldn't call them a 'Super Congress' is because I think Politburo is more accurate.

And as for the Second Amendment . . . it's clear what the Dims think of that. If the Supreme Court has allowed confiscatory rules in several states - despite the clear words of the Second Amendment - then there is little chance that they'd overrule a law that included gun control as a rider on a budget bill. And even if they did rule that part invalid, it would only be after several years had passed . . . and all of our guns had been confiscated.

It doesn't have to happen that way. I don't think that gun control is Pelosi et. al.'s highest priority at this time. But that committee has the power to do anything it wants, and I don't trust the courts to put it right.

[Mr. Mojo]

Just a response to the “UN gun control treaty” quote from article. If the U.S. gov’t lies down with the blue-helmeted transnationalist gun-grabbing pigs, well then.....

[John S Mosby]

Agreed the “Super Congress” is a label ascribing powers to these extra-empowered people THAT ARE NOT THERE.

It would be nice if this labeling caused a constitutional crisis. As it is the “commission” enabling “law” is itself unconstitutional because of the verbage of the bill.

Hennesy has the details,and Freepers need to READ THE BILL that has been handed to the country.

Instead of playing into the hands of the “super congress” conservatives should point out that “the spending continues” and that dems and obama KNEW the Bush tax cuts will expire and STILL they demanded more taxes and “revenue”.
We HAVE TO STOP THIS-— COLD.

[Myrddin]

I think BONER just handed over his power to a Communist Politburo. Obama will decide who sits on that committee. Elections don't matter anymore. Six appointed individuals and Obama will make the laws. The only thing in the way is voting down every damn thing that comes from that "committee".

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Judge Napolitano stated on FOX the “Super Congress” is totally unconstitutional.

This will not matter to the crooks in Congress.

It is time that my fellow Americans who live in the States stand your ground.

It is at the point where it is now or never.

It boggles my mind how 300,000,000 Americans let a handful of crooks rule their lives.

How can so many be afraid of a handful of crooks?

There are:

100 senators
435 house of reps
1 cheeky Kenyan bastard
9 Supreme Court justices

Total: 545 crooks

Each crook is outnumbered by 550,358.7 to 1.

So where is the fear?

[atomic_dog]

GOA needs a new carpet in their clubhouse.

[calex59]

The bottom lines is still as I have stated it. This committee really has no power above and beyond that of the legislature as a whole. The house and the Senate both have to pass the bills that come from their recommendations. The house still belongs to us and we simply need to pressure them to stay strong and to strip the onerous parts out of them before they vote.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“The bottom lines is still as I have stated it. This committee really has no power above and beyond that of the legislature as a whole.”

If I understood Judge Napolitano correctly, there are not enough folks with spines (my words) to stop this crooked unconstitutional mess from happening.

He stated this as a fact and that it will happen.

[mouske]

“It is comprised on the Dim side of ruthless statists and on the RINO side by spineless sycophants of the media.”

Have the members of this committee been announced? Please advise who the members will be. Thanks.

[craigski63]

You are so right.

I Do Not Choose to Be a Common Man

It is my right to be uncommon—if I can.

I seek opportunity—not security.

I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.

I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, “This I have done.”

By Dean Alfange

[moovova]

Super Congress?

Sounds a lot like: Central Committee, as in:

Central Committee of the Communist Party of Russian Federation

Central Committee of the Communist Party of China

Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba

Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Central Committee of the Hungarian Workers' Party

Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania

Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party

Central Committee of the South African Communist Party

Central Committee of the Korean Worker's Party

[Phlyer]

They have not announced all the members, but they have made some early positions clear. 1) Nancy Pelosi will be on the committee, and 2) No one who voted *against* the bill will be allowed on the committee. Therefore, everyone on the Republican side who might not be a RINO is to be excluded.

[Phlyer]

we simply need to pressure them to stay strong and to strip the onerous parts out of them before they vote.

This is not allowed by the bill they have just approved. That's the point! They either accept the Committee's recommendations - in whole, with nothing 'stripped out' - or the triggers are applied. That's what this bill says.

And the person who would be able to undermine that and allow things to be stripped out is . . . Boehner, the principal architect of this bill. He won't allow amendments or other changes.

Things are not "as [you] have stated it," because of the provision in this bill that the Committee's recommendations cannot be changed. That - in conjunction with the triggers - is where their power comes from.

Ultimately, they have no power above and beyond that of the legislature as a whole - but the legislature as a whole has granted to this Committee an unprecedented and unrecoverable (on this topic, and until a new Congress can be elected) share of the power of Congress as whole.

This is like a squad of soldiers who give all their weapons to one member. It is true that that one member has no power beyond that which the squad 'as a whole' possessed, but he's got that power concentrated. Just because it's 'zero-sum' at the bottom line and this committee has no more power than Congress as a whole does not mean it has no real power. It got its power when the other members of Congress surrendered it as part of this bill.

They are still fully *responsible* - you can't delegate responsibility - but they have delegated all their *authority* to a Politburo.

After all, during the reign of the USSR, the Duma has 4000 members - more representatives than we have. And nothing became law until the Duma approved. Under your logic, the Politburo had no particular power. But if the votes of the ratifying body are a foregone conclusion . . . then the real power lies with those who make the decision, not with those who rubber-stamp the already-made decisions.

[TheOldLady]

Boop His Tiny Tail!

Can you believe those itty bitty claws
will soon be six inches long?

Don't let the left get out of hand
Donate, monthly if possible

Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor

[apillar]

They have not announced all the members, but they have made some early positions clear. 1) Nancy Pelosi will be on the committee, and 2) No one who voted *against* the bill will be allowed on the committee. Therefore, everyone on the Republican side who might not be a RINO is to be excluded.

It's my understanding that the four leaders Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, and McConnell will each get a seat on the committee and then each leader will choose 2 members from their party to fill the remainder of the seats. It will take a majority 7 out of 12 votes with at least one vote from each party (I assume since you would have to have one vote from the opposing party to reach 7 anyway since their are 6 members from each party, the section of the bill is rather obvious) Any spending cut recommendations passed would be guaranteed an up or down vote in the house and senate. There is some controversy on whether the committee can forward tax increases or only spending cuts, Boehner and Cantor says it can only forward spending cut's, the democrats disagree.