[StonyMan451]

Unconstitutional?? To make recommendations?? (which they will fail at by design)

When you use that word all the time it loses meaning, like the old story of :'The boy that cried unconstitutional"

I agree with you. While it may be a bad idea to have this committee (and I think it is), it's not unconstitutional. The House has the constitutional right to make its own rules, and that's what they've done.

Nevertheless, when people speak of this committee as being unconstitutional, I think they do have a point... if it's not outright unconstitutional, it does undermine the constitution.

So in the sense that congressmen have taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, it does legitimately raise some eyebrows when they pass rules of procedure that serve to undermine it, even though those rules do not directly violate the constitution.

And even if the rules don't violate the constitution, I think you can argue, convincingly, that it is a violation of their oath to vote for rules of procedure that have the practical effect of limiting the representation in the House of 99.5% of the country's population.

[Windy City Conservative]

The difference between this committee and any other committees, is if they don’t come to an agreement, DEFENSE GETS CUT AUTOMATICALLY AND MEDICARE GETS CUT AUTOMATICALLY. Does this sound Constitutional to you?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”So in the sense that congressmen have taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, it does legitimately raise some eyebrows when they pass rules of procedure that serve to undermine it, even though those rules do not directly violate the constitution. And even if the rules don't violate the constitution, I think you can argue, convincingly, that it is a violation of their oath to vote for rules of procedure that have the practical effect of limiting the representation in the House of 99.5% of the country's population. “

Glad you brought that up. I don't see it that way at all. Neither the he debt limit bill nor the committee can tell either House what they can or cannot do, or vote on. Nothing stops the House from ignoring the recommendations, or even amending and passing them amended.

So what does the bill do? Its imposes spending cuts, delayed cuts based on conditions. So in reality all of the representatives :Ryan, Pelosi, etc that voted for this bill voted for those delayed conditioned spending cuts, although they wont spin it that way. Furthermore, a new bill can always be passed into law that even removes the trigger cuts.

The bill is cowardly and dishonest, but not unconstitutional. TARP was way more unconstitutional than this.

[Impy]

The House has the constitutional right to make its own rules, and that's what they've done.

Exactly. We aren't helped by claiming unconstitutionality when it's not warranted. Opposing the bill on it's merits will do just fine.