This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

[bigrebnc1775]

What in the hell is going on? A supper Congress? We need to clkean the government out today.

The committee of six Republicans and six Democrats, which will do most of its work behind closed doors, will have until Nov. 23 to develop a plan to reduce the budget deficit that must pass through both Houses of Congress before Christmas.

Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

If, however, they fail to find agreement, there's a back-up plan: Under the new law, Congress has set a series of "triggers," which will automatically reduce spending levels across the board if the group cannot get the job done. If the negotiations fall through, billions in cuts to both discretionary spending and the defense budget will automatically kick in, giving neither party a say about the details.
Meet the new Super Congress | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Nothiung but a bunch of statist.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

A tad unnerving, "...behind closed doors..., no amending, no filibustering...."

So the not super congresspeople have zero accountability to those who elected them?

 

[L.K.Eder]

What in the hell is going on? A supper Congress? We need to clkean the government out today.

The committee of six Republicans and six Democrats, which will do most of its work behind closed doors, will have until Nov. 23 to develop a plan to reduce the budget deficit that must pass through both Houses of Congress before Christmas.

Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

If, however, they fail to find agreement, there's a back-up plan: Under the new law, Congress has set a series of "triggers," which will automatically reduce spending levels across the board if the group cannot get the job done. If the negotiations fall through, billions in cuts to both discretionary spending and the defense budget will automatically kick in, giving neither party a say about the details.
Meet the new Super Congress | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Nothiung but a bunch of statist.

it sounds more like a four martini lunch congress.

 

[Ali777]

Maybe the constitutionality of this entire deal needs to be challenged in federal court.

 

[kyzr]

There is no other way to keep the US from becoming Greece. If they get the budget balanced, and save SS & Medicare, or at least take giant steps toward that goal, its Constitutional, "by unanimous consent".

What normally happens is they un-do the cuts and keep the country headed for bankruptcy. We'll see what happens this time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no other way to keep the US from becoming Greece. If they get the budget balanced, and save SS & Medicare, or at least take giant steps toward that goal, its Constitutional, "by unanimous consent".

What normally happens is they un-do the cuts and keep the country headed for bankruptcy. We'll see what happens this time.

This isn't about the budget it's about the new super congress of 12

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

It’s perfectly Constitutional.

Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to enact its own rules:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

As long as each member is allowed his vote, any rules configuration is Constitutional – there’s noting requiring amendments or a filibuster.

Maybe the constitutionality of this entire deal needs to be challenged in federal court.

On what grounds?

Remember that just because Congress enacts a bad law, doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

But this is a bad idea nonetheless, as deciding who may serve on the committee is problematic, to say the least.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

It’s perfectly Constitutional.

Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to enact its own rules:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

As long as each member is allowed his vote, any rules configuration is Constitutional – there’s noting requiring amendments or a filibuster.

Maybe the constitutionality of this entire deal needs to be challenged in federal court.

On what grounds?

Remember that just because Congress enacts a bad law, doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

But this is a bad idea nonetheless, as deciding who may serve on the committee is problematic, to say the least.

No it isn't
Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

 

[Full-Auto]

This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

It’s perfectly Constitutional.

Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to enact its own rules:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

As long as each member is allowed his vote, any rules configuration is Constitutional – there’s noting requiring amendments or a filibuster.

Maybe the constitutionality of this entire deal needs to be challenged in federal court.

On what grounds?

Remember that just because Congress enacts a bad law, doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

But this is a bad idea nonetheless, as deciding who may serve on the committee is problematic, to say the least.

As soon as the next congress starts its becomes non binding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91QEIenOeY0&feature=channel_video_title]‪Is Super Congress Constitutional?‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

It’s perfectly Constitutional.

Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to enact its own rules:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

As long as each member is allowed his vote, any rules configuration is Constitutional – there’s noting requiring amendments or a filibuster.

Maybe the constitutionality of this entire deal needs to be challenged in federal court.

On what grounds?

Remember that just because Congress enacts a bad law, doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

But this is a bad idea nonetheless, as deciding who may serve on the committee is problematic, to say the least.

As soon as the next congress starts its becomes non binding.

According to constitutional scholars it would be binding.

 

[oreo]

What in the hell is going on? A supper Congress? We need to clkean the government out today.

The committee of six Republicans and six Democrats, which will do most of its work behind closed doors, will have until Nov. 23 to develop a plan to reduce the budget deficit that must pass through both Houses of Congress before Christmas.

Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

If, however, they fail to find agreement, there's a back-up plan: Under the new law, Congress has set a series of "triggers," which will automatically reduce spending levels across the board if the group cannot get the job done. If the negotiations fall through, billions in cuts to both discretionary spending and the defense budget will automatically kick in, giving neither party a say about the details.
Meet the new Super Congress | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Nothiung but a bunch of statist.

If you have been paying attention to the bills that have been passed over the last several years by members adding in billions of earmarks-at the last minute-in the "buy" your vote policy of this government--it is probably a very wise move to concentrate--on one topic--versus handing it over to politicians that really should be working on Wall Street.

I am perfectly O.K. with this. Finally something that works for the American people--and not some politicians reelection campaign.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What in the hell is going on? A supper Congress? We need to clkean the government out today.

The committee of six Republicans and six Democrats, which will do most of its work behind closed doors, will have until Nov. 23 to develop a plan to reduce the budget deficit that must pass through both Houses of Congress before Christmas.

Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

If, however, they fail to find agreement, there's a back-up plan: Under the new law, Congress has set a series of "triggers," which will automatically reduce spending levels across the board if the group cannot get the job done. If the negotiations fall through, billions in cuts to both discretionary spending and the defense budget will automatically kick in, giving neither party a say about the details.
Meet the new Super Congress | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Nothiung but a bunch of statist.

If you have been paying attention to the bills that have been passed over the last several years by members adding in billions of earmarks-at the last minute-in the "buy" your vote policy of this government--it is probably a very wise move to concentrate--on one topic--versus handing it over to politicians that really should be working on Wall Street.

I am perfectly O.K. with this. Finally something that works for the American people--and not some politicians reelection campaign.

No amendments would be allowed none of the standard braking system for a bad bill would be in plasce. This bill would not stop any earmarks. Why do you think it would?

 

[Full-Auto]

It’s perfectly Constitutional.

Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to enact its own rules:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

As long as each member is allowed his vote, any rules configuration is Constitutional – there’s noting requiring amendments or a filibuster.


On what grounds?

Remember that just because Congress enacts a bad law, doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

But this is a bad idea nonetheless, as deciding who may serve on the committee is problematic, to say the least.

As soon as the next congress starts its becomes non binding.

According to constitutional scholars it would be binding.

Which ones? The ones that confuse promote and provide?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

What is the process if the House votes no? The proposal folds and they all walk away? or the dirty dozen retreat to start again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As soon as the next congress starts its becomes non binding.

According to constitutional scholars it would be binding.

Which ones? The ones that confuse promote and provide?

Aren't laws binding?
If, however, they fail to find agreement, there's a back-up plan: Under the new law, Congress has set a series of "triggers," which will automatically reduce spending levels across the board if the group cannot get the job done. If the negotiations fall through, billions in cuts to both discretionary spending and the defense budget will automatically kick in, giving neither party a say about the details.

 

[konradv]

This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

It’s perfectly Constitutional.

Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to enact its own rules:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

As long as each member is allowed his vote, any rules configuration is Constitutional – there’s noting requiring amendments or a filibuster.

Maybe the constitutionality of this entire deal needs to be challenged in federal court.

On what grounds?

Remember that just because Congress enacts a bad law, doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

But this is a bad idea nonetheless, as deciding who may serve on the committee is problematic, to say the least.

No it isn't
Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

But those aren't Constitutional questions. They're procedural questions which the Constitution permits each house to set. It may or may not work out well, but it's hardly unconstituional.

 

[whitehall]

Sounds like the Constitutional process is working and you don't like it. This great Country is drowning in debt and we wouldn'e even be talking about cutting spending if it wasn't for the GOP. Thank you John Boehner.

 

[Truthmatters]

I just wish we were also talking about increasing revenue and cutting.

Its like fighting with one hand tied behind your back

 

[konradv]

What in the hell is going on? A supper Congress? We need to clkean the government out today.

The committee of six Republicans and six Democrats, which will do most of its work behind closed doors, will have until Nov. 23 to develop a plan to reduce the budget deficit that must pass through both Houses of Congress before Christmas.

Once they come up with a plan that seven members agree to, it will go to both chambers and can pass with just a simple majority. No filibustering, and no amending allowed.

If, however, they fail to find agreement, there's a back-up plan: Under the new law, Congress has set a series of "triggers," which will automatically reduce spending levels across the board if the group cannot get the job done. If the negotiations fall through, billions in cuts to both discretionary spending and the defense budget will automatically kick in, giving neither party a say about the details.
Meet the new Super Congress | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Nothiung but a bunch of statist.

If you have been paying attention to the bills that have been passed over the last several years by members adding in billions of earmarks-at the last minute-in the "buy" your vote policy of this government--it is probably a very wise move to concentrate--on one topic--versus handing it over to politicians that really should be working on Wall Street.

I am perfectly O.K. with this. Finally something that works for the American people--and not some politicians reelection campaign.

No amendments would be allowed none of the standard braking system for a bad bill would be in plasce. This bill would not stop any earmarks. Why do you think it would?

It would stop the egregious "middle of the night" earmark amendments. Any earmarks would have to be there from the beginning and get a full hearing, instead of being slipped in when no one was paying attention.