This current Congress has just shredded the Constitutional process

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Stop the mid night ear marks, so they put the ear marks in place in the morning.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

12 decide what is to be voted on that isn't the constitutional process, if congress doesn't get the bill passed then cut's will be take automacticly.amendments are part of the constitutional process.

 

[konradv]

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.

12 decide what is to be voted on that isn't the constitutional process, if congress doesn't get the bill passed then cut's will be take automacticly.amendments are part of the constitutional process.

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

12 decide what is to be voted on that isn't the constitutional process, if congress doesn't get the bill passed then cut's will be take automacticly.amendments are part of the constitutional process.

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

One congress can not bind a future congress, while this congress will be obligated to follow their own rules the next one will not.

There is no confusion.

 

[konradv]

12 decide what is to be voted on that isn't the constitutional process, if congress doesn't get the bill passed then cut's will be take automacticly.amendments are part of the constitutional process.

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

One congress can not bind a future congress, while this congress will be obligated to follow their own rules the next one will not.

There is no confusion.

They will be obligated to follow any laws that are passed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why do they need a super-congress? Isn't passing bills, budgets, etc. congress's job???

 

[konradv]

Why do they need a super-congress? Isn't passing bills, budgets, etc. congress's job???

The trouble is that they're not doing their job. Some seem to think a piece of paper they signed is more important than the Constitution. We can't afford to be held hostage like that again.

 

[Full-Auto]

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

One congress can not bind a future congress, while this congress will be obligated to follow their own rules the next one will not.

There is no confusion.

They will be obligated to follow any laws that are passed.

Thats where it becomes unconstitutional.

By your logic the line item veto would still be law.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Or if negotiations fail, they promptly pass a new bill that says "We didn't mean that part."

 

[konradv]

One congress can not bind a future congress, while this congress will be obligated to follow their own rules the next one will not.

There is no confusion.

They will be obligated to follow any laws that are passed.

Thats where it becomes unconstitutional.

By your logic the line item veto would still be law.

That doesn't compute. If a law is passed, Congress would be obligated to follow it in its entirety. Not following the law is what got the line item veto in trouble with the USSC. As long as a law is voted on by the entire Congress, how the sausage was made is irrelevant.

 

[Full-Auto]

They will be obligated to follow any laws that are passed.

Thats where it becomes unconstitutional.

By your logic the line item veto would still be law.

That doesn't compute. If a law is passed, Congress would be obligated to follow it in its entirety. Not following the law is what got the line item veto in trouble with the USSC. As long as a law is voted on by the entire Congress, how the sausage was made is irrelevant.

Nonsense, it was overturned because a congress can not bind another.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Why do they need a super-congress? Isn't passing bills, budgets, etc. congress's job???

Of course it is. But until or unless the voters hold them accountable for not doing their jobs by not re-electing them, their slacking will continue regardless of which side of the political coin happens to be in office at the time.

The Democrats do nothing of consequence while in power; and complain loudly they're hands are tied as being the reason they do nothing when not. The Republicans used to actually accomplish some of the people's business - meaning they sucked in those massive EGOs. There was a time when compromise and bi-partisanship weren't considered four-letter words. Republicans now operate on the "dog-in-the manger" theory - otherwise known as obstinate obstructionism.

 

[Full-Auto]

Why do they need a super-congress? Isn't passing bills, budgets, etc. congress's job???

Of course it is. But until or unless the voters hold them accountable for not doing their jobs by not re-electing them, their slacking will continue regardless of which side of the political coin happens to be in office at the time.

The Democrats do nothing of consequence while in power; and complain loudly they're hands are tied as being the reason they do nothing when not. The Republicans used to actually accomplish some of the people's business - meaning they sucked in those massive EGOs. There was a time when compromise and bi-partisanship weren't considered four-letter words. Republicans now operate on the "dog-in-the manger" theory - otherwise known as obstinate obstructionism.

I feel your outrage.

Imagine the very idea of wanting fiscal responsibility.

Should they be dragged into the streets and shot?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thats where it becomes unconstitutional.

By your logic the line item veto would still be law.

That doesn't compute. If a law is passed, Congress would be obligated to follow it in its entirety. Not following the law is what got the line item veto in trouble with the USSC. As long as a law is voted on by the entire Congress, how the sausage was made is irrelevant.

Nonsense, it was overturned because a congress can not bind another.

They are saying it's a law and laws are biding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

12 decide what is to be voted on that isn't the constitutional process, if congress doesn't get the bill passed then cut's will be take automacticly.amendments are part of the constitutional process.

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

Not allowing a congress to amend a bill is unconstitutional. Thank God for the amendiment process if not for that look at some of the monster bill's we woulld have for laws now.

The 12 could tack on somethings like more Gun control to certain bills and if the bill was passed then cut would automaticly take place. No fillabuster to stop it, no way to amend it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One congress can not bind a future congress, while this congress will be obligated to follow their own rules the next one will not.

There is no confusion.

They will be obligated to follow any laws that are passed.

Thats where it becomes unconstitutional.

By your logic the line item veto would still be law.

Thats exactly what this super congress will be doing.

 

[konradv]

12 decide what is to be voted on that isn't the constitutional process, if congress doesn't get the bill passed then cut's will be take automacticly.amendments are part of the constitutional process.

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

Not allowing a congress to amend a bill is unconstitutional. Thank God for the amendiment process if not for that look at some of the monster bill's we woulld have for laws now.

The 12 could tack on somethings like more Gun control to certain bills and if the bill was passed then cut would automaticly take place. No fillabuster to stop it, no way to amend it.

No it isn't. The Constitution plainly says the Congress gets to make up its own rules.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

NO, they're covered under the rules of Congress. I think you're getting your amendments confused.

Not allowing a congress to amend a bill is unconstitutional. Thank God for the amendiment process if not for that look at some of the monster bill's we woulld have for laws now.

The 12 could tack on somethings like more Gun control to certain bills and if the bill was passed then cut would automaticly take place. No fillabuster to stop it, no way to amend it.

No it isn't. The Constitution plainly says the Congress gets to make up its own rules.

Yes it does but if you see the one word to keep bypassing and that is LAW. Every Congress is bound by laws. This isn't a rule it's a law.

 

[jillian]

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

I'm curious as to how it would be unconstitutional. Congress has the right to establish such committees and subcommittees as it deems appropriate. You pretend constitutionalists are really confused.

More importantly, who do you think has standing to challenge the law?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

I'm curious as to how it would be unconstitutional. Congress has the right to establish such committees and subcommittees as it deems appropriate. You pretend constitutionalists are really confused.

More importantly, who do you think has standing to challenge the law?

Rules are not laws and visus versus.Thios congress is not wanting to make a rule they are wanting to make a law. How would you like it if they had aboirtion as ilklegal tacked onto a bill. Which would you choose voting to make abortion illegal or cut's in the welfare system? Without the amendment prlocess you would have to make that choice.

More importantly, who do you think has standing to challenge the law

My guns.