[RandallFlagg]

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

I see nothing in there about anything like a, “Super Congress.”

I DO, however, see something about a, “Second Amendment....”

[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.