PDA

View Full Version : Legal Supercongress or Committee may not be Constitutional and there is standing to sue


BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 09:54 AM
The Dictator's Rubber-Stamp Mini-Congress

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/91QEIenOeY0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 10:19 AM
There is no constitutional ground to stop this. None. The Constitution assumed those in charge would uphold it.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:29 AM
There is no constitutional ground to stop this. None. The Constitution assumed those in charge would uphold it.

Huh? I trust the Judge's interpretation more and he says even a congressman has standing to sue because he is not allowed to debate something but can only vote up or down. It makes sense to me based on what powers have been authorized to Congress.

Hydrae
08-03-2011, 10:29 AM
There is no constitutional ground to stop this. None. The Constitution assumed those in charge would uphold it.

There is no constitutional ground to create this.

(I have not watched the video, don't do video from work)

patteeu
08-03-2011, 10:32 AM
I like Napolitano, but he's completely wrong on this. His very first statement is incorrect, in fact. He says that the constitution gives Senators and Congresspeople the right to debate and amend bills. It doesn't. It grants Congress the opportunity to create their own rules within the broader constraints of the powers granted. This committee idea, with it's fast track voting mechanism, is nothing more than Congress deciding how they want to procede. As with any normal rule, they can change their minds at any time and cancel the plan. There's nothing unconstitutional about it.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 10:33 AM
Huh? I trust the Judge's interpretation more and he says even a congressman has standing to sue because he is not allowed to debate something but can only vote up or down. It makes sense to me based on what powers have been authorized to Congress.

Where does the constitution say that a Congressman has the right to debate a bill?

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:38 AM
...I just now looked up the powers of Congress and I don't see where it says they can make their own rules such as disallowing participation other than casting a vote.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

Sounds to me like a chosen few get to make the laws and the rest of congress get an up or down vote which isn't exactly making the laws.

Donger
08-03-2011, 10:39 AM
LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:41 AM
Where does the constitution say that a Congressman has the right to debate a bill?

The same place it says it says they can "create their own rules." It doesn't say that either. At least not in the powers of congress. I think these fast-tracking devices water down the idea of representation of constituents. Hardly creates a more " perfect union."

It grants Congress the opportunity to create their own rules within the broader constraints of the powers granted.

There's no language for this either.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:44 AM
LMAO
Yup, you got nuthin' — as usual. :LOL:

Tell me, can you contribute any thoughts to this to hash it out and convince others?

Nope.

Donger
08-03-2011, 10:46 AM
Yup, you got nuthin' — as usual. :LOL:

Tell me, can you contribute any thoughts to this to hash it out and convince others?

Nope.

No, I think I'll just continue to laugh at you for posting this instead.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:49 AM
No, I think I'll just continue to laugh at you for posting this instead.
In other words nervous laughter which means you're an idiot on the topic. :hmmm: Typical statist.


Baaaa.....baaaa.....baaaaa!lambslambslambs

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 10:54 AM
I am not against the idea of having committees. It's the fast tracking I question. This is how the elites foisted fake free trade on us.
The committee is novelty in the American federal legislative system because other committees are not structured or have the same formation. Other committees do not have the same degree of powers as this "super" one has.

Congressman Ron Paul warns that the all-powerful new “Super Congress” created by the vote on the debt ceiling will be used to fast-track tax increases while concentrating more power over the nation’s purse strings in the hands of the Washington elite.

This body will have “extraordinary new powers” to quickly force legislation through both chambers, including gun control, entitlement cuts and tax hikes.

In a statement made yesterday in response to the passage of the Budget Control Act, Congressman Ron Paul expressed his alarm at the establishment of this “disturbing” new committee, and warned that it would be used to ram through tax increases.

“The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments,” said Paul. “Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission– even if it includes tax increases. This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.”

The Congressman added that the committee represents “Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership.”

Indeed, the White House has already indicated that it will harness the power of the Super Congress, thereby becoming the de facto deciding 13th member, to terminate the Bush tax cuts from 2012 onwards.



“Congress could not modify the committee’s recommendation,” reports CBS, an admission that powers ascribed to elected lawmakers that are enshrined in the Constitution are being completely gutted.

If Congress rejects the super committee’s proposals, “then automatic across the board spending cuts of at least $1.2 trillion would go into effect.”



Second Amendment organizations like Gun Owners of America fear that this new super committee of lawmakers would not stop at ruling over the debt issue, and that it could move on to target the right to bear arms by pushing legislation on “Gun owner registration, “bans on semi-automatic firearms,” and the “adoption of a UN gun control treaty.”

The fact that the establishment of a body which threatens to completely re-write over 200 years worth of constitutionally-based legislative practice has sailed through with barely a whimper of debate from politicians or the mainstream media is a damning indictment of how the Obama administration’s penchant for executive autonomy has aggressively seized control of the political process.

Once again, it is up to the grass roots to raise the alarm on this shocking development in the hope that it can later be shot down by a federal judge still familiar with the basic tenets of the constitution.

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=2095

patteeu
08-03-2011, 11:19 AM
...I just now looked up the powers of Congress and I don't see where it says they can make their own rules such as disallowing participation other than casting a vote.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

Sounds to me like a chosen few get to make the laws and the rest of congress get an up or down vote which isn't exactly making the laws.

It's not really that hard to find:

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.

In other words, the constitution leaves it up to each House to decide how they want to legislate. This is not a constitutional issue.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 11:27 AM
Each house of congress may make it's own rules on how to proceed, it is expressly in the Constitution.

I disagree with the OP.

Amnorix
08-03-2011, 11:30 AM
I like Napolitano, but he's completely wrong on this. His very first statement is incorrect, in fact. He says that the constitution gives Senators and Congresspeople the right to debate and amend bills. It doesn't. It grants Congress the opportunity to create their own rules within the broader constraints of the powers granted. This committee idea, with it's fast track voting mechanism, is nothing more than Congress deciding how they want to procede. As with any normal rule, they can change their minds at any time and cancel the plan. There's nothing unconstitutional about it.


This.

Amnorix
08-03-2011, 11:32 AM
The same place it says it says they can "create their own rules." It doesn't say that either. At least not in the powers of congress. I think these fast-tracking devices water down the idea of representation of constituents. Hardly creates a more " perfect union."


So Congress CANNOT create their own rules. Is that your position? Cuz it's silly. And it's all you got.

You just don't like this rule. Others don't like the filibuster, the pocket hold or whatever it's called, etc. But that doesn't make them unconstitutional.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:38 AM
Each house of congress may make it's own rules on how to proceed, it is expressly in the Constitution.

I disagree with the OP.

Okay, so show me the line where it says this. Also, what if those rules violate other parts of the Constitution?

Garcia Bronco
08-03-2011, 11:41 AM
First off...this Super Congress is totally unconstitutional. They cannot change representation in congress based on party membership. They also cannot pass laws without the congress voting on it. They also cannot randomly change constitutional amendments. Constitutional Amendments require that state legislatures vote on them and that state governors sign the state legislation.

Garcia Bronco
08-03-2011, 11:42 AM
Okay, so show me the line where it says this. Also, what if those rules violate other parts of the Constitution?

It's only in the constitution for the senate.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Okay, so show me the line where it says this. Also, what if those rules violate other parts of the Constitution?Article 1 Section 5.

Bump
08-03-2011, 11:44 AM
the only law congress cares about is how much money lobbyists are willing to give them to pass or deny a law in favor of the business.

Garcia Bronco
08-03-2011, 11:44 AM
Where does the constitution say that a Congressman has the right to debate a bill?

It's certainly implied. If you think not....why have them at all?

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:46 AM
It's only in the constitution for the senate.

Okay. I have since found this:

Section 5: Procedure

Clause 2: 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. ”

I still don't see how they can enact procedures, such as one that cuts out most of congress, that essentially by pass the idea of having representational govt, or the purpose of having a congress which is inherent in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution


In other words, the formation and structure of this goes beyond mere procedures and by passes the role of Congress. It's one of those tricky fuzzy things that happen more and more these days which sound okay on the surface but when the details are looked at doesn't hold up—at least not completely. More like legerdemain.

Garcia Bronco
08-03-2011, 11:47 AM
Article 1 Section 5.

whoops my mistake. It is both houses.

Cannibal
08-03-2011, 11:49 AM
This new "Super Congress" is nothing but a scheme to allow members of Congress to absolve themselves of responsibility for difficult and unpopular votes in order to make it easier to be re-elected.

It makes me sick.

alnorth
08-03-2011, 11:53 AM
Wow. I thought Napolitano was smarter than this. This is not even remotely unconstitutional. He is completely and hilariously wrong on this issue.

First off...this Super Congress is totally unconstitutional. They cannot change representation in congress based on party membership. They also cannot pass laws without the congress voting on it. They also cannot randomly change constitutional amendments. Constitutional Amendments require that state legislatures vote on them and that state governors sign the state legislation.

No, it is not unconstitutional. At all, not even a little bit. The full congress still has to vote on the final bill, and the committee would be wise to take the fact that their idea could be voted down into account.

What we have here is congress voting on empowering a committee to present an unamended idea for an up or down vote. If you do not want the committee to have that power, you would have voted no earlier this week. If you are fine with the committee presenting an unamended idea but then you think the idea sucks, vote no on their recommendation.

alnorth
08-03-2011, 11:54 AM
This new "Super Congress" is nothing but a scheme to allow members of Congress to absolve themselves of responsibility for difficult and unpopular votes in order to make it easier to be re-elected.

It makes me sick.

bullcrap.

If voting for or against the recommendation is a "tough vote", then hold them accountable for voting yes or no. Don't let them get away with saying "but gee, I had no choice, I didn't want the triggered cuts", because they voted to make those cuts possible.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:56 AM
Wow. I thought Napolitano was smarter than this. This is not even remotely unconstitutional. He is completely and hilariously wrong on this issue.



No, it is not unconstitutional. At all, not even a little bit. The full congress still has to vote on the final bill, and the committee would be wise to take the fact that their idea could be voted down into account.

What we have here is congress voting on empowering a committee to present an unamended idea for an up or down vote. If you do not want the committee to have that power, you would have voted no earlier this week. If you are fine with the committee presenting an unamended idea but then you think the idea sucks, vote no on their recommendation.

You know your previous post had changed my mind on this earlier. But the way Napolitano puts it here makes me question it again. The devil is in the DETAILS. I hope Congress resists and it falls apart.

I mean really al, I respect you, but you also fell for that 14th Amendment claim because of what some lawyers said.

I think Napolitano brings up valid points heretofore unaddressed. Plus Paul is right on how this consolidates more power because of HOW it is set up not because it's another committee.

alnorth
08-03-2011, 12:02 PM
You know your previous post had changed my mind on this earlier. But the way Napolitano puts it here makes me question it again. The devil is in the DETAILS. I hope Congress resists and it falls apart.

I mean really al, I respect you, but you also fell for that 14th Amendment claim because of what some lawyers said.

I think Napolitano brings up valid points heretofore unaddressed. Plus Paul is right on how this consolidates more power because of HOW it is set up not because it's another committee.

You are trying to twist some very clear, very simple, and very straightforward language in the constitution that can not credibly be re-interpreted to mean anything but what it says in plain English. You seem to think the congress has some constitutional right to amend legislation, but there are many instances where the senate or the full congress limits or eliminates the ability to amend a bill.

Here's another reason why Napolitano is hilariously wrong: the congress could tomorrow, on a whim, pass another bill saying "you know what, we change our mind, up to 5 amendments are now allowed". It would probably be vetoed, but the full congress originally passed the bill.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:02 PM
First off...this Super Congress is totally unconstitutional. They cannot change representation in congress based on party membership. They also cannot pass laws without the congress voting on it. They also cannot randomly change constitutional amendments. Constitutional Amendments require that state legislatures vote on them and that state governors sign the state legislation.

None of that is going on.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 12:04 PM
So Congress CANNOT create their own rules. Is that your position? Cuz it's silly. And it's all you got.

You just don't like this rule. Others don't like the filibuster, the pocket hold or whatever it's called, etc. But that doesn't make them unconstitutional.Hey you attorneys, pick and choose the rules you want to follow and ignore the rest.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 12:05 PM
Okay. I have since found this:

Section 5: Procedure

Clause 2: 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. ”

I still don't see how they can enact procedures, such as one that cuts out most of congress, that essentially by pass the idea of having representational govt, or the purpose of having a congress which is inherent in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution


In other words, the formation and structure of this goes beyond mere procedures and by passes the role of Congress. It's one of those tricky fuzzy things that happen more and more these days which sound okay on the surface but when the details are looked at doesn't hold up—at least not completely. More like legerdemain.

:facepalm: You could have also found it by reading post 14.

And whoever said it applies only to the Senate was wrong.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 12:08 PM
Okay. I have since found this:

Section 5: Procedure

Clause 2: 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. ”

I still don't see how they can enact procedures, such as one that cuts out most of congress, that essentially by pass the idea of having representational govt, or the purpose of having a congress which is inherent in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution


In other words, the formation and structure of this goes beyond mere procedures and by passes the role of Congress. It's one of those tricky fuzzy things that happen more and more these days which sound okay on the surface but when the details are looked at doesn't hold up—at least not completely. More like legerdemain.They have been using committees for like, EVAH, and the scotus has had no problem with it. The committee will still report to the congress at which time it can vote it up or down. The Constitution is in tact. Congress can even disallow the triggered cuts if it so chooses, thus, effectively rendering the SUPER committee absolutely meaningless. It is what it is, "dancing a little sidestep".

From the movie, "Distinguished gentleman", with Eddie Murphy.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 12:11 PM
BEP loves the constitution, except when it works against her. Nice purist you are BEP. lmao.

orange
08-03-2011, 12:13 PM
I'm going to tactlessly point out that the Constitution is intact ... as is the word, here.

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 12:16 PM
Okay. I have since found this:

Section 5: Procedure

Clause 2: 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. ”

I still don't see how they can enact procedures, such as one that cuts out most of congress, that essentially by pass the idea of having representational govt, or the purpose of having a congress which is inherent in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution


In other words, the formation and structure of this goes beyond mere procedures and by passes the role of Congress. It's one of those tricky fuzzy things that happen more and more these days which sound okay on the surface but when the details are looked at doesn't hold up—at least not completely. More like legerdemain.

Hopefully, now you understand my point?

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:26 PM
You are trying to twist some very clear, very simple, and very straightforward language in the constitution that can not credibly be re-interpreted to mean anything but what it says in plain English. You seem to think the congress has some constitutional right to amend legislation, but there are many instances where the senate or the full congress limits or eliminates the ability to amend a bill.

Here's another reason why Napolitano is hilariously wrong: the congress could tomorrow, on a whim, pass another bill saying "you know what, we change our mind, up to 5 amendments are now allowed". It would probably be vetoed, but the full congress originally passed the bill.

'Eh no, your position appears correct on the SURFACE but not when you examine the details. That is where it's not so clear. NOPE Sorry.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:26 PM
Hopefully, now you understand my point?

No I don't. :huh:

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 12:27 PM
I'm going to tactlessly point out that the Constitution is intact ... as is the word, here.My bad, thanks for the edit. :)

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:29 PM
Another problem I see is with the words bipartisan with equal members of each party even when another party is the majority.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 12:29 PM
They have been using committees for like, EVAH, and the scotus has had no problem with it. The committee will still report to the congress at which time it can vote it up or down. The Constitution is intact. Congress can even disallow the triggered cuts if it so chooses, thus, effectively rendering the SUPER committee absolutely meaningless. It is what it is, "dancing a little sidestep".

From the movie, "Distinguished gentleman", with Eddie Murphy.Edited by Orange, a much more superior mind than me.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:32 PM
The first article of the Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress." — This is another of Napolitano's points.

alnorth
08-03-2011, 12:33 PM
'Eh no, your position appears correct on the SURFACE but not when you examine the details. There is where it's not so clear. NOPE Sorry.

I assume then that you believe that conference committees, which the congress has used since... hell I can't even find the origin in a search so maybe since the beginning, is unconstitutional too?

To recap: One of the houses (house or senate) passes a bill. Other house doesn't like it, amends it, and passes a modified version of that bill, which could be extremely different from the first bill. If the first house doesn't like the amended bill and both houses don't want the bill to die, they often go to a conference committee. What is a conference committee? Each house picks a few members to hash out the differences to create one bill, and if a majority in the conference committee can agree on a final bill, then it goes to both houses where they both must vote on it, and amendments are not allowed.

A committee, which has the power to force both houses to vote on an unamendable final bill, where the committee is made up of only a few people, and where the partisan breakdown by party does not necessarily reflect the GOP/Dem split of congress. Sound familiar? It should, because it is not new, and we've been doing it for a very long time.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:34 PM
[QUOTE=alnorth;7798292]I assume then that you believe that conference committees, which the congress has used since... hell I can't even find the origin in a search so maybe since the beginning, is unconstitutional too?
Apparently you haven't read my posts here if you're asking me this.

Let me know when you've read them. Then I'll respond. Otherwise it's a strawman.

orange
08-03-2011, 12:35 PM
I love the last ~30 seconds:

"No judge will ever rule this way, but that doesn't mean I'm not right."

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:36 PM
I love the last ~30 seconds:

"No judge will ever rule this way, but that doesn't mean I'm not right."

Strawman.

alnorth
08-03-2011, 12:48 PM
Apparently you haven't read my posts here if you're asking me this.

Let me know when you've read them. Then I'll respond. Otherwise it's a strawman.

I quickly re-read your posts, but I do not see where you address conference committees, and how they are constitutional where this particular committee is unconstitutional. (Or hell maybe you think the conference committee is unconstitutional)

I do not believe you can make that argument because to the extent they differ, they do not differ in any ways that are relevant to the constitution. Both committees have the ability to force congress to vote on a bill without amendments, they are both made up of only a few people, and they both do not reflect the partisan split of congress. If one is unconstitutional, then the other MUST BE unconstitutional as well, which would be unfortunate since we've used conference committees forever.

You can't invent restrictions that do not exist in the constitution. The constitution is almost completely silent on rules and procedures regarding where a bill originates, how debate is regulated, and the process of amending a bill. Hell, amendments are not even protected in the constitution at all. Both houses could pass a rule tomorrow saying that amendments are forbidden, that once a bill is voted out of committee, you must either vote on the bill or send it back to committee. That wouldn't be unconstitutional either, because the constitution places almost no restrictions on their internal processes. (aside from a few things like revenue bills start in the house)

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 12:50 PM
I quickly re-read your posts, but I do not see where you address conference committees, and how they are constitutional where this particular committee is unconstitutional. (Or hell maybe you think the conference committee is unconstitutional)
Post #13

alnorth
08-03-2011, 12:58 PM
Post #13

ok. The only thing that might possibly, indirectly, be an answer is your objection to "fast-tracking". I do not see how that is constitutionally relevant. This committee will report out in a few months (or maybe they wont, but they will try), but conference committees also often report out fairly quickly.

Again, I do not believe you can credibly make the argument that the conference committee is constitutional while this committee is not. To the extent they differ, they do not differ in any way that is relevant to the constitution at all, especially since the constitution places almost no restrictions on congressional rules and procedures.

orange
08-03-2011, 12:58 PM
You can't invent restrictions that do not exist in the constitution. The constitution is almost completely silent on rules and procedures regarding where a bill originates, how debate is regulated, and the process of amending a bill.

While I agree with this about 90%, a case CAN be made (and has been):

The Constitutional Argument Against the Filibuster

The June 5 hearing - led by Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate majority leader - posed a few constitutional questions relating to the filibuster. Senator Lott stated that he was cognizant that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, might well decline to resolve these questions based on the "political question" doctrine, which suggests that some questions are not susceptible for judicial review. But he still wanted answers, referring to the oath he had taken to uphold the Constitution.

First, the Senators asked, how can one square the filibuster device and practice with the Constitution itself?

As Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have noted in an elegant law review article, in seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them.

For instance, the Constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority of each House to override a Presidential veto of legislation. In addition, it requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict and remove an officer of the United States who has been impeached by the House (as many will remember from President Bill Clinton's impeachment).

In short, some suggest, ordinary majority rule is the Constitution's baseline, and the Constitution is careful and explicit in detailing the situations in which supermajorities are required. Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate.

Therein lies the primary argument against the constitutionality of the filibuster: In failing to expressly include the Senate cloture rule, the Constitution implicitly excludes it. (The Latin term for this interpretive rule is expressio unius est exclusio alterius.) The Constitution, on this reading, gives an exhaustive, exclusive list of all supermajority rules that can be applied in the House or Senate.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html

listopencil
08-03-2011, 01:00 PM
It's not really that hard to find:

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.

In other words, the constitution leaves it up to each House to decide how they want to legislate. This is not a constitutional issue.

Yeah, seems pretty cut and dry. If the houses don't approve of a "super committee" then they can oppose and dissolve it by vote.

alnorth
08-03-2011, 01:01 PM
While I agree with this about 90%, a case CAN be made (and has been):

But, the filibuster is not constitutionally protected. At any time, not just the beginning of a congress, but at ANY TIME at all, the senate could decide with 51 senators on a whim to get rid of the filibuster. Since they have not, then they agree with the filibuster. This is a restriction in the senate, imposed by the senate upon itself. If they want to do that, then they can but no senator should be under the illusion that this tool cannot be taken away if a simple majority decides to.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 01:06 PM
That constitutional argument against the filibuster seems pretty hopeless to me. The constitution is clear that the Senate makes up it's own rules.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 01:08 PM
But, the filibuster is not constitutionally protected. At any time, not just the beginning of a congress, but at ANY TIME at all, the senate could decide with 51 senators on a whim to get rid of the filibuster. Since they have not, then they agree with the filibuster. This is a restriction in the senate, imposed by the senate upon itself. If they want to do that, then they can but no senator should be under the illusion that this tool cannot be taken away if a simple majority decides to.

Right.

orange
08-03-2011, 01:11 PM
But, the filibuster is not constitutionally protected. At any time, not just the beginning of a congress, but at ANY TIME at all, the senate could decide with 51 senators on a whim to get rid of the filibuster. Since they have not, then they agree with the filibuster. This is a restriction in the senate, imposed by the senate upon itself. If they want to do that, then they can but no senator should be under the illusion that this tool cannot be taken away if a simple majority decides to.

I posted that about the filibuster not because it's directly relevant, but to give voice to the notion that the Constitution does restrain the rules that Congress can adopt.

More specifically to this Supercommittee, I think the 3x3x3x3 representation could be a sticking point. The Constitution has been used to throw out gerrymandering and I believe the same logic could be applied. The conference committees you've mentioned actually support this approach, since they are apportioned relative to the vote totals, not by caucus size.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 01:44 PM
But, the filibuster is not constitutionally protected. At any time, not just the beginning of a congress, but at ANY TIME at all, the senate could decide with 51 senators on a whim to get rid of the filibuster. Since they have not, then they agree with the filibuster. This is a restriction in the senate, imposed by the senate upon itself. If they want to do that, then they can but no senator should be under the illusion that this tool cannot be taken away if a simple majority decides to.This is certainly true, however, the Senate has a rule, that requires 2/3 vote in the Senate to change any of the Senate's standing rules.

orange
08-03-2011, 01:49 PM
... the notion that the Constitution does restrain the rules that Congress can adopt.

Upon reflection, I think it is abundantly obvious that this is the case. Imagine, if you will, that the House voted (by straight party-line vote clearly) that Reps who are not in the majority caucus could not serve on any committee. Can you further imagine that rule standing for even a day?


There is a line - an invisible line, to be sure, and I'm reasonably sure this Supercommittee is on the legal side of the line - but there is a line.

[edit] And I actually find myself sort-of on the side of BEP and Judge Nappy on the Constitution?!? :redface:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc67/healthypetnut/HundundKatze1.jpg

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 02:05 PM
This is certainly true, however, the Senate has a rule, that requires 2/3 vote in the Senate to change any of the Senate's standing rules.Senate rule 22 specifically.

Bump
08-03-2011, 02:19 PM
congress is ONLY here for business purposes. You can just throw the idea of "for the people" out of the window. They only pass or deny laws based on what businesses pay them off the most.

Amnorix
08-03-2011, 02:42 PM
They also cannot pass laws without the congress voting on it.


Err...they're not. The entire Congress will vote, and can vote it all down.

go bowe
08-03-2011, 02:47 PM
In other words nervous laughter which means you're an idiot on the topic. :hmmm: Typical statist.


Baaaa.....baaaa.....baaaaa!lambslambslambs

awwwww, now that was precious... :grouphug:

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 02:49 PM
congress is ONLY here for business purposes. You can just throw the idea of "for the people" out of the window. They only pass or deny laws based on what businesses pay them off the most.

The politicians need to be reminded of...NO TAXATION, WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. This is sickening how much they are trampling the Constitution, which is the same as trampling on WE THE PEOPLE.

Calcountry
08-03-2011, 04:29 PM
Err...they're not. The entire Congress will vote, and can vote it all down.Florida 2000. You may not like the rules because they settle things like ties, but, we have to have them, otherwise we have chaos.

Baby Lee
08-03-2011, 04:59 PM
No, I think I'll just continue to laugh at you for posting this instead.


PSST - there are some folks in the nation who decided to broadcast this on a NETWORK.

That probably consumed a few more calories than cut, paste, post.

Baby Lee
08-03-2011, 05:03 PM
Where does the constitution say that a Congressman has the right to debate a bill?

If people want actual scholarship on this issue, you'd be wise to read up on the arguments from when Omnibus Bills came to prominence.

The big difference would be concerning whether spending cuts are germane to tax code adjustments.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 06:40 PM
This is certainly true, however, the Senate has a rule, that requires 2/3 vote in the Senate to change any of the Senate's standing rules.

That rule can be changed by a majority. No Congress can bind a future Congress without passing a constitutional amendment.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 06:42 PM
Upon reflection, I think it is abundantly obvious that this is the case. Imagine, if you will, that the House voted (by straight party-line vote clearly) that Reps who are not in the majority caucus could not serve on any committee. Can you further imagine that rule standing for even a day?


There is a line - an invisible line, to be sure, and I'm reasonably sure this Supercommittee is on the legal side of the line - but there is a line.

[edit] And I actually find myself sort-of on the side of BEP and Judge Nappy on the Constitution?!? :redface:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc67/healthypetnut/HundundKatze1.jpg

That line you imagined... you had to imagine it because it's not in the constitution. The remedy for that kind of shenanigan is voting the partisan power grabbers out of office.

orange
08-03-2011, 06:52 PM
That line you imagined... you had to imagine it because it's not in the constitution.

Yes, it is there. It's right there in Article LI - next to "Judicial Review."

p.s.

The remedy for that kind of shenanigan is voting the partisan power grabbers out of office.

"Vote them out..." - is that REALLY how courts are supposed to protect the rights of the minority?

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 08:32 PM
...through OMB. That right there is what takes away the authority of Congress. Those devilish details.

Paul makes that point from 3:53 and after on Fox Business because OMB is under the Executive Branch. He, as well as Lou Dobbs, (3:10 ) say what I said about the fast-track point not being in the Constitution even for trade agreements. This is what we're getting more of more of with each presidency since Clinton, repeated acts of massing of power under the Executive Branch. Yes it's happened earlier as well but Obama's been doing this more and more when he can't get something through Congress. This is govt by decree—not by the Constitution. Like I said, the devil is in the DETAILS.

This is Living Constitution BS! Amazing that patteeu supports it but then he supported signing statements and the unitary executive when Bush was in power so I guess it goes with the territory.

This claim to bipartisanship being more desirable or our congress is dysfunctional is really just a way to ram through legislation the elites want.



<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c2XS5q-OhGo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 08:41 PM
ok. The only thing that might possibly, indirectly, be an answer is your objection to "fast-tracking". I do not see how that is constitutionally relevant. This committee will report out in a few months (or maybe they wont, but they will try), but conference committees also often report out fairly quickly.

Again, I do not believe you can credibly make the argument that the conference committee is constitutional while this committee is not. To the extent they differ, they do not differ in any way that is relevant to the constitution at all, especially since the constitution places almost no restrictions on congressional rules and procedures.

The problem is this can give more power to the executive branch which makes will handle the cuts, which is the role of Congress. As Lou Dobbs says where is "fast-track" in the Constitution? It isn't. I still have a problem with this bipartisan issue with equal representation for each party, particularly when that may not be the make-up of Congress. This is different than a normal committee. I am convinced of this now.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 11:20 PM
Yes, it is there. It's right there in Article LI - next to "Judicial Review."

p.s.



"Vote them out..." - is that REALLY how courts are supposed to protect the rights of the minority?

The rules of Congress aren't any business of the courts.

Do you remember in 2008 how democrats constantly included claims that the Republicans were unfairly freezing them out of aspects of the legislative process and that if we would only elect them, they'd bring change to Washington DC? And then, in 2010, Republicans complained about how democrats froze them out of certain aspects of governance as a part of their bid to retake one or both houses of Congress? It's the way our system works.

Where are your courts and your phantom constitutional provision when the House Majority leader exerts total control over what bills will be considered and the minority party has almost no say at all?

patteeu
08-03-2011, 11:22 PM
...through OMB. That right there is what takes away the authority of Congress. Those devilish details.

Paul makes that point from 3:53 and after on Fox Business because OMB is under the Executive Branch. He, as well as Lou Dobbs, (3:10 ) say what I said about the fast-track point not being in the Constitution even for trade agreements. This is what we're getting more of more of with each presidency since Clinton, repeated acts of massing of power under the Executive Branch. Yes it's happened earlier as well but Obama's been doing this more and more when he can't get something through Congress. This is govt by decree—not by the Constitution. Like I said, the devil is in the DETAILS.

This is Living Constitution BS! Amazing that patteeu supports it but then he supported signing statements and the unitary executive when Bush was in power so I guess it goes with the territory.

This claim to bipartisanship being more desirable or our congress is dysfunctional is really just a way to ram through legislation the elites want.

The living constitution crowd makes up constitutional requirements that don't appear in the document, just like you're doing on this issue.

orange
08-04-2011, 12:28 AM
The rules of Congress aren't any business of the courts.

"The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations, all matters of method are open to the determination of the house, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate, or even more just."

UNITED STATES V. BALLIN, 144 U. S. 1 (1892)

Imagine that!!! They found the invisible line. They must have a copy of Article LI.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 07:06 AM
It's the mechanism inside this committee's set-up which are the automatic triggers that allow the executive branch to use the power of the purse. Congress cannot transfer it powers under the guise of it being a rule or procedure.

This is the same as when Congress gave the power to decide when to use military force in the Iraqi Resolution. That, too, was a transfer of Congressional power. This is twice, in recent years now, that it's been Republicans that have had Congress ceding it's authority to the Executive Branch.

So, I will go back to my initial gut reaction—Boehner and McConnell are traitors.

patteeu
08-04-2011, 08:05 AM
"The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations, all matters of method are open to the determination of the house, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate, or even more just."

UNITED STATES V. BALLIN, 144 U. S. 1 (1892)

Imagine that!!! They found the invisible line. They must have a copy of Article LI.

They can't adopt a rule that denies black members a vote.

Other than that type of thing though, I think you bolded the wrong part.

patteeu
08-04-2011, 08:11 AM
It's the mechanism inside this committee's set-up which are the automatic triggers that allow the executive branch to use the power of the purse. Congress cannot transfer it powers under the guise of it being a rule or procedure.

This is the same as when Congress gave the power to decide when to use military force in the Iraqi Resolution. That, too, was a transfer of Congressional power. This is twice, in recent years now, that it's been Republicans that have had Congress ceding it's authority to the Executive Branch.

So, I will go back to my initial gut reaction—Boehner and McConnell are traitors.

When Congress authorizes the executive branch to spend money, it rarely specifies exactly what the money must be spent on. Instead, it gives general guidelines and the executive branch makes the decisions about how to spend it. There is nothing different here except that instead of increasing spending they're telling the executive branch to reduce it.

Your gut reactions are pretty horrible.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 08:18 AM
Nope

Nor is there anything to allow fast track

Once again, you defend traitors while they do end runs around the Constitution. Conservatives have said for years there were too many agencies under the Executive previously and those put too much power in that branch as well.

Let's face it pat, you've defended some pretty questionable Constitutional claims, but then you're a Bushie not an originalist.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 09:43 AM
Nope

Nor is there anything to allow fast track

Once again, you defend traitors while they do end runs around the Constitution. Conservatives have said for years there were too many agencies under the Executive previously and those put too much power in that branch as well.

Let's face it pat, you've defended some pretty questionable Constitutional claims, but then you're a Bushie not an originalist.


Let's face it BEP, you're making up shit as you go along, because the Constitution doesn't support your pov at all. You're just reading into the Constitution what you WANT it to say, instead of what it does say.

But let's face it, "originalists" are just as prone to that as anyone else.

orange
08-04-2011, 11:38 AM
They can't adopt a rule that denies black members a vote.

Other than that type of thing though, I think you bolded the wrong part.

That was 1892 - it had nothing to do with blacks. The principle is very, very clearly spelled out, and you are very, very clearly wrong.

Just as it is very, very clear that you are incapable of ever admitting that you're wrong. ROFL

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 12:11 PM
That rule can be changed by a majority. No Congress can bind a future Congress without passing a constitutional amendment.They go through that exercise every time a new Senate is sworn in, and every time the existing rules of the Senate are proceeded with on precedent because 2/3rds of the Senate are already an existing body that already have rules for proceeding.

patteeu
08-04-2011, 12:13 PM
That was 1892 - it had nothing to do with blacks. The principle is very, very clearly spelled out, and you are very, very clearly wrong.

Just as it is very, very clear that you are incapable of ever admitting that you're wrong. ROFL

I didn't say that your example had anything to do with blacks. I was using my example because it's a clear case of a Congressional rule that would violate a fundamental right. Selecting a joint committee to propose legislation on which every member of Congress will get a vote before anything can become law doesn't even come close to that kind of violation.

If your whole point was that courts might get involved in Congressional rules in egregious cases despite my blanket statement to the contrary, I'll concede that I exaggerated. If you think there's any legitimate constitutional ground on which to criticize the debt ceiling compromise, it's your admission of error that's pending indefinitely.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 12:14 PM
They can't adopt a rule that denies black members a vote.

Other than that type of thing though, I think you bolded the wrong part.Ultimately if they did something stupid like that, they would be answerable to the people.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 12:15 PM
Let's face it BEP, you're making up shit as you go along, because the Constitution doesn't support your pov at all. You're just reading into the Constitution what you WANT it to say, instead of what it does say.

But let's face it, "originalists" are just as prone to that as anyone else.LMAO

patteeu
08-04-2011, 12:15 PM
They go through that exercise every time a new Senate is sworn in, and every time the existing rules of the Senate are proceeded with on precedent because 2/3rds of the Senate are already an existing body that already have rules for proceeding.

In other words, each Congress voluntarily accepts the rules. They don't have to accept them though, even if every single member/Senator retains his or her seat.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 12:17 PM
That rule can be changed by a majority. No Congress can bind a future Congress without passing a constitutional amendment.No, but the Senate can bind the Senate.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 12:18 PM
In other words, each Congress voluntarily accepts the rules. They don't have to accept them though, even if every single member/Senator retains his or her seat.exactly. They impose those rules on themselves.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 12:20 PM
exactly. They impose those rules on themselves.The existing Senators have a vested interest in doing so, so the likelihood of rule 22 being overturned is pretty weak.

I mean, they like being lobbied for things like Cornhusker kickbacks.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 12:23 PM
LMAO

Laugh all you want because his reliance on that means he can't refute Paul, Napolitano or the points of Dobbs. Hence the ad hominen.

Also, when someone makes an accusation like that, they're usually talking about themselves—projection. Here's a guy that supports the idea of a "living Constitution." If I were just making it up, why would I change my mind a few times already or even used the word "may" in the title. Nope, my mind was open although my original gut feel was correct. ( including fast track)

It was Lou Dobbs and Paul's point about the OMB/Executive branch that changed my position beyond "may". That's the detail that takes away the power of the purse from Congress. Knowing how these things expand I don't think this was a good idea. It also was for the Beltway-crowd to marginalize the Tea Party in the Congress. I mean, I've already read that Obama is counting on Jeb Bush and R leadership like Boehner and McConnell to push them out. Nice to know where you stand Calcountry—with the traitors.

patteeu
08-04-2011, 12:25 PM
No, but the Senate can bind the Senate.

No they can't. Or I should say, only if they continue to agree to be bound.

orange
08-04-2011, 12:36 PM
If you think there's any legitimate constitutional ground on which to criticize the debt ceiling compromise, it's your admission of error that's pending indefinitely.

I'll admit my error when I make one.

There is a line - an invisible line, to be sure, and I'm reasonably sure this Supercommittee is on the legal side of the line - but there is a line.

Don't hold your breath.

orange
08-04-2011, 12:41 PM
Ultimately if they did something stupid like that, they would be answerable to the people.

No, they would be answerable to the COURTS, first. Even if the majority of "the people" never goes along with it (barring something exceptional like an Amendment ... or rebellion). As has been plainly stated by the Supreme Court. UNITED STATES V. BALLIN, 144 U. S. 1 (1892)

go bowe
08-04-2011, 12:42 PM
pffft...

the supremes never state anything clearly...

orange
08-04-2011, 12:48 PM
Let's face it BEP, you're making up shit as you go along, because the Constitution doesn't support your pov at all. You're just reading into the Constitution what you WANT it to say, instead of what it does say.

But let's face it, "originalists" are just as prone to that as anyone else.

I found it odd, yesterday:

[edit] And I actually find myself sort-of on the side of BEP and Judge Nappy on the Constitution?!? :redface:


But it's not because I moved... they moved. Nappy is basically arguing an Implied Power in that clip.

I think it should be called Judge Napolitano's IP Address. http://www.fuduntu.org/forum/images/smilies/user83559_pic43268_1255723460.gif

orange
08-04-2011, 12:52 PM
pffft...

the supremes never state anything clearly...

How dare you!

http://scherriepayneandlyndalaurence.com/supremes2000z.jpg

Clear as a bell.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 12:57 PM
I found it odd, yesterday:



But it's not because I moved... they moved. Nappy is basically arguing an Implied Power in that clip.

I think it should be called Judge Napolitano's IP Address. http://www.fuduntu.org/forum/images/smilies/user83559_pic43268_1255723460.gif

Where?

Believe it or Nappy supports the incorporation doctrine too. I don't. At least he keeps it limited to a fundamental natural right though.

orange
08-04-2011, 12:59 PM
Where?


Read any of your posts through (at least) page 5. The ones where everyone else (bar one) insists that there is no such wording in the Constitution.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 01:21 PM
Read any of your posts through (at least) page 5. The ones where everyone else (bar one) insists that there is no such wording in the Constitution.

For fast-track, and super congress yes. It does say "ALL legislative powers " which was also pointed out by Nappy. ( BTW like the nickname...it's easier to type too)

teedubya
08-05-2011, 06:33 AM
Trust the government explicitly. They have our best interests at heart, obviously. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn kook!!!

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 07:13 AM
Trust the government explicitly. They have our best interests at heart, obviously. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn kook!!!

Yeah, that's not what any of us are saying.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 07:20 AM
Laugh all you want because his reliance on that means he can't refute Paul, Napolitano or the points of Dobbs. Hence the ad hominen.

Mostly I insult you cuz it's so damn easy.

Also, when someone makes an accusation like that, they're usually talking about themselves—projection. Here's a guy that supports the idea of a "living Constitution." If I were just making it up, why would I change my mind a few times already or even used the word "may" in the title. Nope, my mind was open although my original gut feel was correct. ( including fast track)

You're trying to put stuff in the Constitution that CLEARLY is not there. Just as you feel others go out of their way to read the Constitution in such a way as to broaden federal power or the flexibility of what the federal government can do, you go out of your way to read the Constitution in such a way as to limit and tie the hands of everyone involved.

The fact is that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them from forming a committee to do what they are doing here. You just don't like it, and you therefore scream that it is unConstitutional. It's not. It OBVIOUSLY is not. The entire Congress CAN AND WILL vote the recommendations up or down. The entire Congress DID vote to have the sequestration in effect.

You ardent desire that they not proceed in this manner does not render it unConstitutional. Sorry.

It was Lou Dobbs and Paul's point about the OMB/Executive branch that changed my position beyond "may". That's the detail that takes away the power of the purse from Congress. Knowing how these things expand I don't think this was a good idea. It also was for the Beltway-crowd to marginalize the Tea Party in the Congress. I mean, I've already read that Obama is counting on Jeb Bush and R leadership like Boehner and McConnell to push them out. Nice to know where you stand Calcountry—with the traitors.

You don't seem to understand how budgeting and expenditures are made by the federal government to begin with. Do you think Congress has specified precisely HOW every dollar is spent by the federal government?

I agree with you, actually, that Congress has gone far too far in ceding power to the executive branch in many areas. I further agree that there are certainly some things that the Congress may NOT cede to the executive branch (and there are some SCOTUS rulings to that effect also). I'm uncertain whether this particular instance goes too far, but sequestration is hardly a new concept.

BucEyedPea
08-05-2011, 04:15 PM
Yeah, guess I was just making things up!


From The Hill
By Pete Kasperowicz - 08/05/11 09:14 AM ET

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) indicated on Thursday that he might challenge the creation of a new "supercommittee" in Congress aimed at finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade.

"I would challenge it in the courts and say that it is not a constitutional function," Paul said on CNBC Thursday. "There's no authority to have a super-Congress who takes over for what the House and Senate are supposed to do."

When asked specifically if he believes the committee is unconstitutional, Paul said, "I don't think there's any doubt about it.

"Where does it say that we can set up a program like this and then … pop something back into the House and Senate and say you have a vote, you can't take it to a subcommittee or full committee?" he asked. "So no, that is not what was set up by the Constitution. That was so far removed that it almost becomes a silly notion."

Other Republicans have so far called for the transparent operation of the supercommittee, but have not gone as far as Paul's argument that it is unconstitutional. Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said this week that the committee would not operate as a commission, and would be made up of members and make recommendations that Congress can accept or reject.

But as Paul indicated, the committee's recommendations are privileged, as they are not open to amendment and must be voted on by Dec. 23.


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/175599-paul-hints-at-legal-challenge-to-debt-supercommittee

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 05:58 PM
So whats Paul waiting for if hes so certain?

BucEyedPea
08-05-2011, 06:32 PM
You'll have to ask HIM.

ronpaul@aol.com

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 08:03 PM
Yeah, guess I was just making things up!



You hardly need to work hard to convince us that you agree with Ron Paul, or vice versa, or that your (both of you) have an overly narrow, inaccurate understanding of the Constitution.

He can feel free to sue, but he won't win that suit.

patteeu
08-05-2011, 09:08 PM
You hardly need to work hard to convince us that you agree with Ron Paul, or vice versa, or that your (both of you) have an overly narrow, inaccurate understanding of the Constitution.

He can feel free to sue, but he won't win that suit.

In this case, of course, she and Ron Paul are adding their own ideas into the constitution. It's really a shameful thing for people who claim to believe in a document with fixed meaning to do. Ron Paul loses a lot of constitutional credibility with me over this one.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2011, 05:58 AM
That wasn't my point Amnorix....to convince you that I agree with Paul. It was to show, before Paul commented, that I wasn't the only one. Therefore I wasn't just making it up all on my own. Then again, you tend strawman posts, which tells me you fail to see what particular aspect of this that makes it Constitutionally questionable—that the executive branch can get power of the purse—not that it's a rule or procedure.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2011, 06:06 AM
Oh, even gun owners of America fear this as a stepping stone to expand beyond debt issues. Aside from the Constitutionality issue, this is a VERY BAD idea.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2011, 06:12 AM
pat, you're not addressing the substance of the argument.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 07:58 AM
That wasn't my point Amnorix....to convince you that I agree with Paul. It was to show, before Paul commented, that I wasn't the only one. Therefore I wasn't just making it up all on my own. Then again, you tend strawman posts, which tells me you fail to see what particular aspect of this that makes it Constitutionally questionable—that the executive branch can get power of the purse—not that it's a rule or procedure.

Given that you started this thread off with a video from Judge Napolitano arguing the position you've embraced, why would anyone have thought you made it up?

patteeu
08-06-2011, 07:59 AM
pat, you're not addressing the substance of the argument.

I've already decisively done that. We've even got living constitution guys like Amnorix agreeing that you're trying to stretch the thing beyond it's breaking point.

HonestChieffan
08-06-2011, 09:34 AM
with the downgrade the pressure to make the cuts take effect sooner than later and bigger will be huge.

Ace Gunner
08-06-2011, 01:32 PM
Oh, even gun owners of America fear this as a stepping stone to expand beyond debt issues. Aside from the Constitutionality issue, this is a VERY BAD idea.

no doubt it is. but so is voting. It hasn't worked in decades. same shit, different leader. there's only one option left .. and it isn't voting.

BigChiefFan
08-07-2011, 12:48 AM
Holy shit, how could anybody be arguing against BEP's point? BEP, is a Constitutionalist. Pat, you're an extremist, NEO-CON. What a crock, brother. I can't believe you are really backing a Super Congress, Pat. Don't tread on us, anymore, you Bendict Arnold, pig shit.

For claiming to be a Conservative, you sure like the government intervening and calling the shots. We The People, say you're full of shit, brother and reject your audacity of thinking you have our best interests in mind. You don't. War is death and death "ain't cool."

Take your killing, psychopath mind and clamor at the thought, that, We The people aren't going to lay down to venomous hatred being spewed in our direction and killing of our sons and daughters for your bogus fight. We aren't your pawns. We are Americans, who deserve the right, to the pursuit of happiness, without being infringed upon.

Sell your death monicker to those willing to die for greed. Those with principals reject your eagerness for death to our fellow, brethren.

BigChiefFan
08-07-2011, 01:29 AM
I've already decisively done that. We've even got living constitution guys like Amnorix agreeing that you're trying to stretch the thing beyond it's breaking point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lxVJIF05E&feature=related
Enjoy, Arnie.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 08:12 AM
......We've even got living constitution guys like Amnorix agreeing that you're trying to stretch the thing beyond it's breaking point.
Well DUH! Amnorix has a chronic tendency to mistate, or restate, positions to reframe them so he can just argue like a lawyer. He probably thinks I mean the committee aspect on this when it's the OMB getting to make cuts.

In case you haven't noticed, Amn frequently disagrees with my takes on the Constitution, such as the Tenth Amendment. I would suspect the tax and spend clause as well. He's a legal positivist.

patteeu
08-07-2011, 08:39 AM
Holy shit, how could anybody be arguing against BEP's point? BEP, is a Constitutionalist. Pat, you're an extremist, NEO-CON. What a crock, brother. I can't believe you are really backing a Super Congress, Pat. Don't tread on us, anymore, you Bendict Arnold, pig shit.

For claiming to be a Conservative, you sure like the government intervening and calling the shots. We The People, say you're full of shit, brother and reject your audacity of thinking you have our best interests in mind. You don't. War is death and death "ain't cool."

Take your killing, psychopath mind and clamor at the thought, that, We The people aren't going to lay down to venomous hatred being spewed in our direction and killing of our sons and daughters for your bogus fight. We aren't your pawns. We are Americans, who deserve the right, to the pursuit of happiness, without being infringed upon.

Sell your death monicker to those willing to die for greed. Those with principals reject your eagerness for death to our fellow, brethren.

The problem with populism, whether on the left or on the right, is that there are too many stupid people out there and they embrace some pretty stupid ideas. Exhibit A above.

go bowe
08-07-2011, 11:05 PM
The problem with populism, whether on the left or on the right, is that there are too many stupid people out there and they embrace some pretty stupid ideas. Exhibit A above.

i thought the first part was facetious, but then i read the rest...

hoo boy... :facepalm:

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 12:34 PM
Hmmm.....

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/18QjfdhJEM4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>