New Debt Deal “Super Congress” is Super Unconstitutional

scottfactor.com ^ | 08/04/2011 | Gina Miller

[Impy]

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.

[sickoflibs]

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.

[LearsFool]

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.)

[kidd]

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

[swatbuznik]

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

[verity]

Everyone has an anal orifice and an opinion.

[Impy]

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

What do you think, counselor?

[Josephat]

No taxation without representation!

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

[mo]

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.

[Cboldt]

The "Super Congress" is quite similar to an administrative rule-making agency, unaccountable.

[mrsmith]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[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.

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.

[CPOSharky]

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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[LearsFool]

YOUR representative will get to say "yes" or "no".

And that's ALL he'll get to say.

[Truth29]

“hysteria?” Remember your Soma when “unexpectedly” bad things happen and the GOP disappoints, again.

[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?