'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

[Feuer Frei!]

Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress. This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.



Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
Obama has shown himself to be a fan of the commission approach to cutting social programs and entitlements. Shortly after taking office, Obama held a major conference on deficit reduction and subsequently created, by executive order, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The White House made two telling appointments to chair the commission: The first was former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), a well known and ill informed critic of Social Security who earned notoriety by suggesting, among other things, that the American government had become "a milk cow with 310 million tits!"

The commission needed 14 of 18 members to approve the plan in order for it to advance to Congress for a vote. The commission fell short, but did win a majority.
Proponents of slashing spending won't make the same mistake with a new Super Congress. Only a simple majority will be necessary.



SOURCE (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

[Snestorm]

Sounds like something out of the USSR.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Sounds like something out of the USSR.
Politbyro sub-committee in action propably. However if that is only way to get your Congress to really work... well then I would accept its existence.

[Skybird]

:dead:

[Blood_splat]

To the streets!

[Bubblehead1980]

Wow, we need to throw these SOB's out quickly.They obviously think they are someone special to do such a thing that is not constitutional.Reading this just makes me :damn:

[Bubblehead1980]

Politbyro sub-committee in action propably. However if that is only way to get your Congress to really work... well then I would accept its existence.


NO!!!!!! They do not have the power under the Constitution to just create a new congress because they can't get the votes they want for their crap plans. This should disturb everyone!!

[krashkart]

Wow, we need to throw these SOB's out quickly.They obviously think they are someone special to do such a thing that is not constitutional.Reading this just makes me :damn:

I'm inclined to agree with you here.


EDIT: Although, we should find a use for them after ousting them. I'd bet there are plenty of little old ladies around the country who need some pro-bono yard work done for them. :D

[yubba]

I'd settle with a monkey flippin a coin than this.

[ZeeWolf]

Good God, is that all these people can think about. I would love to see them
freeze the (compound) interest on the on the debt to ZERO. Rip the power
from the fed by making the charging of (compound) interest a criminal act of usery.
And forcing the use of simple interest by loaning institutions and banksters with
a clear cap of 3% simple interest.
Compound intrust has been the best tool devised by these swindling traitors.
And has lead to the collapse and financial slavery of whole nations.

ZeeWolf

[krashkart]

I'd settle with a monkey flippin a coin than this.

It's the best I could find in 10 seconds... :salute:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6138/5970673661_ba5e2bb1b0_m.jpg

[yubba]

Good God, did you see the price of a can of peas. How can I eat my peas when I can't afford them, tell me that King Obama. To think, I thought King George and Darth Chenney were bad.

[yubba]

It's the best I could find in 10 seconds... :salute:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6138/5970673661_ba5e2bb1b0_m.jpg Now that's funny

[Winston]

So I guess the more debt you have the more government you need? Hm, sounds like a few more jobs for the boys lined up at the tax payers expense.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Good God, did you see the price of a can of peas. How can I eat my peas when I can't afford them, tell me that King Obama. To think, I thought King George and Darth Chenney were bad.
If I read article correctly this so called 'super congress' proposal comes from Dem. and Rep. Senate leaders - not from His Majesty.

[yubba]

If I read article correctly this so called 'super congress' proposal comes from Dem. and Rep. Senate leaders - not from His Majesty.
Well we don't know that his Majesty, wasn't whispering in their ear, " you know what would be a better idea than the gang of six", sounds pretty sick to me, and yes, I like the monkey flippin a coin better, and yes I thought that idea up all on my own, and at no time was a crayon indangered:O:

[Sailor Steve]

Wow, we need to throw these SOB's out quickly.They obviously think they are someone special to do such a thing that is not constitutional.Reading this just makes me :damn:
I agree, but how is it not Constitutional?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
There is nothing that regulates how they do it.

What makes me nervous is the "Six members from each Party" part. The parties are not part of government makeup and are not provided for in the Constitution. While they are part of our lives they are not part of the government. This should be non-partisan. On the other hand since the two parties in power are the ones at each others' throats perhaps this is the only way to organize it.

[Sailor Steve]

intrust
The word is "interest"

[krashkart]

The word is "interest"


I had thought about pointing that out m'self, but I didn't want to steal yer thunder. :yep:

Also, it might have resulted in my eyebrows nitting themselves together. :smug:

[ZeeWolf]

The word is "interest"

Thanks SS, I fixed it. I've been working with code since early morning (c++ and jave) - all morning.

ZeeWolf

[TorpX]

...isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution

FAIL

...would be granted extraordinary new powers.

FAIL

-- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers...

FAIL

:down:

I see nothing good about this. Another scheme to ram through something that could never pass on it's own. More sneaky deals. Anything to avoid taking responsibility, I guess.

More and more, I think this might require a temporary default. The President (and many in congress) seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issue. Another election and another President may be neccessary to solve this.

I suppose there will be some kind of face-saving nonsense compromise, where the can will be kicked down the road... (again).

[yubba]

I had thought about pointing that out m'self, but I didn't want to steal yer thunder. :yep:

Also, it might have resulted in my eyebrows nitting themselves together. :smug:
Me too, but I'm not picky as most {bet you thought I was going to say ana what nice weather we are having } voices say time clean the knifes and and sharpen the guns

[Rockstar]

only slightly faster than a sloth, more powerful than the constitution, able to leap over the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government in a single bound.

Super Congress awaaaaay!

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman/221-1.jpg

Well maybe not :D


.

[Bubblehead1980]

I agree, but how is it not Constitutional?

.



Reportedly the Super Congress would have powers not present in the Constitution.The fact the only states represented in the drafting/debate of a law would be those who's Senator/Rep happen to be in this "Super Congress."The Constitution set up our government the way it is so all states were represented.Sure they will claim "well they still get to vote etc" but essentially only 12 people would have any say in whats in a law etc it's just pure crap.That much power is not supposed to be in the hands of so few.This is not represenative government.

I am not surprised a deranged little fool like Harry Reid would come up with this.I am somewhat surprised McConnell would sign on to this.I think McConnell is an idiot but never saw him as a bad guy or a threat in the way the Pelosi, Obama, Reid, etc are but now it is very apparent what a danger he is.


This in a way reminds me of Roosevelt's attempted court packing plan in the 30's.Roosevelt could not get his way via legit means because the court found many of his new deal policies to be unconstitutional(they were) so he tried to alter the court.The plan failed because it was crap.Sadly, he was able to intimidate some of the justices(JusticeOwen roberts for example) to ignore their constitutional principles and rule in favor of his garbage.Same thing here, they can't get their debt BS through because of principled people who were elected in November.People like Rubio and Rand Paul and the freshman Reps in the house who won't settle for a ridiculous tax hike or bs spending cuts "over the long term" so they are trying to bypass the constitution and set their own rules.

I will be shocked if they are actually able to do this but with people like Obama, Reid and McConnell up there, who knows.Perhaps SCOTUS will be the savior of the Republic, we shall see.

[mookiemookie]

Way too much concentrated power. I don't like this idea at all.

[Armistead]

Time to stockpile some more ammo and can goods.

[yubba]

Don't forget the water, you are dead in less than 10 days without it. I find, rice an kippers with coconut milk is a mighty fine ration, when your out revolutioning, and don't forget your rubbers. Why is it I get the feeling that I'm not in the land of the free anymore. Why is it I feel the Stalinistic boot stepping down on my neck. Why hasn't anybody called back these repersenitves, to their district offices and hold their feet to the fire till they decide to repersent us, I think standing around those offices with pitch forks an torches, with buckets of tar an bags of feathers would send a good messeage to these no accounts.

[Sailor Steve]

Reportedly the Super Congress would have powers not present in the Constitution.The fact the only states represented in the drafting/debate of a law would be those who's Senator/Rep happen to be in this "Super Congress."The Constitution set up our government the way it is so all states were represented.Sure they will claim "well they still get to vote etc" but essentially only 12 people would have any say in whats in a law etc it's just pure crap.That much power is not supposed to be in the hands of so few.This is not represenative government.
I agree, but unfortunately the Constitution does not specify how the job is to be done. They're pretty much free to do what they want in that regard. They already have many committees who arrange things that are tacitly voted on. The States are hardly ever all represented. I do agree there is a problem with it, and I'm hoping someone will come up with a way to keep it from happening, but I'm not hopeful.

You bring up Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and again you are mistaken. Not wrong, but mistaken. Reread the Constitution if you must (and I think you should). There is nothing there concerning the number of justices, and they are appointed by the President, subject to the approval of Congress. That's it. I agree Roosevelt was wrong, but his move was not Unconstitutional.

Way too much concentrated power. I don't like this idea at all.
Nor do I, but all we lowly serfs can do is wait and hope, and see what happens next.

[Anthony W.]

Time to stockpile some more ammo and can goods.

I'm waaaay ahead of you.

Seriously, we the free people of America have nowhere left to go unless the South succeeds again.

Personally, barring the whole slavery thing, I wish the South would've won in the first place.

To Alabama?

[gimpy117]

it's sad we even have to consider this because nobody can compromise. Everyone says i finger point...so I might as well do it here.

why is a compromise not happening? Taxes. The whole "no new revenue" business as far as i know. So even though democrats are are giving in the form of cuts, republicans still don't want to give up things like the bush tax cuts to help balance the budget. Something i think is the main problem and is wrong

[yubba]

And you know why they don't want to compromise, the more chaos they create the more money that gets shoved into their pockets and the more closer they get to this disaster, the more the money will fly, and more regulation and more power they will exsert. I'm sittin next to the space center if they can shut that down I think they can cut some more pork it's all about redistrabution of our wealth, how much of it, do you think is heading to Africa in the next couple of days, while they got this going on, and you won't even notice it happen, until it's all done and over with.

[Anthony W.]

One of the main problems is that something like 60% of people don't pay taxes. That needs to change. Now. And the democrats won't let that happen.

Also, there is no more right to completely fail. Welfare needs to be drastically cut. We have to stop making it so easy to live off government money. If you're on welfare or unemployment, you should have to be either presenting a check stub or applying for a job every week.

And social security - it has failed. I pay into it, and I know there is no way in hell I'm going to get anything out of it. FDR set the entire thing up as a ponzi scheme anyhow. Back when it was created, the average life expectancy was early 60's.

Medicare needs a total overhaul.

All government assistance programs need a total overhaul - period.

And the tax gap needs to change. The fact that the top 1% of income earners pay something like 50% of all taxes has got to change.

The entire tax code needs revamping.

[krashkart]

Anthony, you know how many times in my short little life I've heard those exact same words?

Here's the problem as I see it:












See it? I don't either. That's because I don't know what makes this country, or any other country, run. Slash social security and you get new problems. Slash Medicare, and you get new problems. Dump the Bush tax cuts, you get new problems. The list could go on and on and on. A good question to ask from here might be:

Who in the heck can we trust to get the job done without playing silly games just short of the end zone? A person like that would have almost superhuman qualities for a politician. And I don't think that would be impossible. Just... highly improbable.


My two bits.

[Sailor Steve]

it's sad we even have to consider this because nobody can compromise. Everyone says i finger point...so I might as well do it here.

why is a compromise not happening? Taxes. The whole "no new revenue" business as far as i know. So even though democrats are are giving in the form of cuts, republicans still don't want to give up things like the bush tax cuts to help balance the budget. Something i think is the main problem and is wrong
And you could well be right. I don't know any more than KrashKart does, and neither do Bubblehead1980, Anthony W. or Yubba. That they think they do know the answers is likely part of the problem.

[Bubblehead1980]

I agree, but unfortunately the Constitution does not specify how the job is to be done. They're pretty much free to do what they want in that regard. They already have many committees who arrange things that are tacitly voted on. The States are hardly ever all represented. I do agree there is a problem with it, and I'm hoping someone will come up with a way to keep it from happening, but I'm not hopeful.

You bring up Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and again you are mistaken. Not wrong, but mistaken. Reread the Constitution if you must (and I think you should). There is nothing there concerning the number of justices, and they are appointed by the President, subject to the approval of Congress. That's it. I agree Roosevelt was wrong, but his move was not Unconstitutional.

Nor do I, but all we lowly serfs can do is wait and hope, and see what happens next.


Steve, I never said the court packing plan was unconstitutional.I said the the new deal was unconstitutional and many parts of it were so Roosevelt decided to to try and pack the court, manipulating the process so he could get his radical legislation through.The packing plan was low even for Roosevelt and intimidated the court, namely Owen Roberts into being more friendly to the new deal.Judges who knew and felt legislation was unconstitutional began to vote in favor in order to save the court.I used the court packing plan to show when in the past the kind of crap like the super congress proposal has happened.The constitutionality of the plan was not part of the example, just the intention to circumvent the process to achieve an agenda.

Now, the difference is the super congress would actually be unconstitutional.Passing legislation that sets up a second congress is not constitutional because only one congress, consisting of both the house and senate, is mentioned in the constitution.There is no power to set up another "super congress" with the powers they would have. Removing everyone but twelve members from the legislative process("regular" members would not be able to amend legilslation nor debate it openly on floor of house or senate) except for the vote is not exactly constitutional.Sure they have committees now BUT the full congress are allowed to amend ,debate, and then vote on the laws that emerge from the committees.Twelve people only representing the states and districts from which they are elected would be drafting, debating, and amending legislation that affects the entire country denying other states full representation in congress.Bottom line, they do not have the power to create a congress within the congress, draft, debate, amend laws and then only allow the actual congress to vote up or down.The committee process is different as explained.

I can tell now the lame argument from the supporters of this would be : The Super Congress is actually a committee and would still allow for a vote with from both houses of congress so it is constitutional.Pure crap, this is first term con law material.Same thing with healthcare mandate at the federal level, those with legal training who try to say it's constitutional, they know better and are just being intellectually dishonest.Not going off on a side show, just same old crap, usually from the lefties and neo cons.They know damn well what is and is not constitutional but they really could care less so they lie and try to twist it, hope it sticks.


Good news is we agree this is a bad idea.

[Bubblehead1980]

it's sad we even have to consider this because nobody can compromise. Everyone says i finger point...so I might as well do it here.

why is a compromise not happening? Taxes. The whole "no new revenue" business as far as i know. So even though democrats are are giving in the form of cuts, republicans still don't want to give up things like the bush tax cuts to help balance the budget. Something i think is the main problem and is wrong

compromising is not a viable option right now.The US does not have a revenue problem, contrary to what the Dems claim.The US has a spending problem that both parties...Dems and well the establishment Republicans are guilty of creating.

Raising taxes on ANYONE is a bad idea right now, ANYONE.The class warfare being played in tough economic times is just outrageous.The cuts Dems have promised are long term stuff that will never actually go into effect, they just want money to spend as does some Republicans in the neo con side of things.The new guys in Senate like Paul and Rubio and other principled people in the house like Ron Paul in addition to the freshman Reps from the conservative wing of party are standing on principle as they vowed to do.REAL cuts with no new taxes is the solution to this, then we could raise the ceiling one more time and work toward a balanced budget and paying off our debt.

I don't want us to default but the time has come to draw a line in the sand, we are over 14 trillion in debt, we must deal with this.Let's not forget we are in a recession and never a good idea to raise taxes in a recession, esp so the government can spend more.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

How much those in Congress really represent States and Districts instead of only their party and campaing contributors? How many think themselves instead of just doing as told to do?

[gimpy117]

compromising is not a viable option right now.The US does not have a revenue problem, contrary to what the Dems claim.The US has a spending problem that both parties...Dems and well the establishment Republicans are guilty of creating.

depends on how you look at it. glass is half empty situation. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. especially when we ave a tax code full of loopholes and corporations paying 0% taxes. At least close the loopholes. We all know even though the super rich "have the highest tax rates" with all the loopholes they don't pay nearly that.

[mookiemookie]

And the tax gap needs to change. The fact that the top 1% of income earners pay something like 50% of all taxes has got to change.

No it doesn't. The top 1% have captured more and more of the wealth in this country over the past 20, 30 years at the expense of the middle and lower class. Their tax status should reflect that.

[August]

All this whining about raising taxes on the rich sounds to me like a strawman argument. This isn't a one time only deal folks. Budgets are voted on every year.

What is stopping the Democrats from passing a spending cut bill without increasing taxes for now then raising them in a separate bill later on?

The only thing I can think of it that their refusal is purely political. They are willing to have the county go into default because they don't want to be reigned in by the GoP.

[mookiemookie]

All this whining about raising taxes on the rich sounds to me like a strawman argument. This isn't a one time only deal folks. Budgets are voted on every year.

What is stopping the Democrats from passing a spending cut bill without increasing taxes for now then raising them in a separate bill later on?

The only thing I can think of it that their refusal is purely political. They are willing to have the county go into default because they don't want to be reigned in by the GoP.

That finger points both ways, August. The GOP's refusal to budge on anything is not negotiation, it's hostage taking. I firmly believe that the GOP sees a catastrophe like a national default as being their ticket to the White House. Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?

[August]

That finger points both ways, August. The GOP's refusal to budge on anything is not negotiation, it's hostage taking. I firmly believe that the GOP sees a catastrophe like a national default as being their ticket to the White House. Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?

You may be right mookie but a national default hurts the GoP as much as it does anyone else. As far I can tell the Democrats are not really willing to seriously reign in government spending. Increasing taxes and fees is just feeding their addiction to our money so maybe default is a necessary evil to break the pattern of tax and spend.

In any case the Dems hold the majority of government ATM so they'll be getting the majority share of the blame if default happens therefore is them who should be bending here.

[Rockstar]

I could be wrong but I don't think a default will happen.

IMO Congress is waiting for the last minute after all that the President has said these last several days about how important it is NOT to default. When he finally receives it he will not have time to send it back and will be forced to sign.

In the meantime super congress's are being created and I betcha they're piling on more pork too.

[mookiemookie]

maybe default is a necessary evil to break the pattern of tax and spend.

No. Just, no. A default is not going to purge the system or balance the budget. It would be a national disaster that would exacerbate the debt problem significantly. Interest on the national debt would skyrocket.

[August]

No. Just, no. A default is not going to purge the system or balance the budget. It would be a national disaster that would exacerbate the debt problem significantly. Interest on the national debt would skyrocket.

Then it sounds like the Administration and Senate had better get off their duffs and pass what the House sends them.

[Osmium Steele]

Let's not forget that failure to reach and agreement on a raise in the debt ceiling by the president's arbitrary deadline will not automatically trigger a debt default.

This country has previously reached/surpassed the debt cap, and not defaulted.

The Treasury takes in more than enough in daily receipts to service the national debt, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

The only way the U.S. defaults at this point is if the Treasury Department, i.e. the Executive Branch, decides NOT to service the debt first.

That particular ball sits squarely in BHO's personal court.

[Armistead]

It's all politics, they'll work out a short term deal and then it's the blame game, but it is possible we lose our credit rating.

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, I never said the court packing plan was unconstitutional. (etc)
Fair enough. I apologise if I misunderstood your intent.

Now, the difference is the super congress would actually be unconstitutional.Passing legislation that sets up a second congress is not constitutional because only one congress, consisting of both the house and senate, is mentioned in the constitution.There is no power to set up another "super congress" with the powers they would have. Removing everyone but twelve members from the legislative process("regular" members would not be able to amend legilslation nor debate it openly on floor of house or senate) except for the vote is not exactly constitutional.Sure they have committees now BUT the full congress are allowed to amend ,debate, and then vote on the laws that emerge from the committees.Twelve people only representing the states and districts from which they are elected would be drafting, debating, and amending legislation that affects the entire country denying other states full representation in congress.Bottom line, they do not have the power to create a congress within the congress, draft, debate, amend laws and then only allow the actual congress to vote up or down.The committee process is different as explained.
But the Congress would still be able to accept or reject whatever plan this new group came up with. I think I adequately pointed out that the Constitution gives the Congress all power in money matters, and doesn't specify what they can or can't do to accomplish the task; so yes, I think they are within their Constitutional power to do this. I will be glad to be proven wrong, because I hate this idea.

I will say one thing in its favor, though. What would be forbidden in the main vote by Congress as a whole would be the ability to amend or attach riders to it, and I also hate riders. Things that would never get approved get shovelled through with some bill that will pass easily, and Congress doesn't have the energy or the interest to remove them. That said, this doesn't begin to outweigh the evils of this plan as far as I'm concerned.

I can tell now the lame argument from the supporters of this would be : The Super Congress is actually a committee and would still allow for a vote with from both houses of congress so it is constitutional.Pure crap, this is first term con law material.Same thing with healthcare mandate at the federal level, those with legal training who try to say it's constitutional, they know better and are just being intellectually dishonest.Not going off on a side show, just same old crap, usually from the lefties and neo cons.They know damn well what is and is not constitutional but they really could care less so they lie and try to twist it, hope it sticks.


Good news is we agree this is a bad idea.[/QUOTE]

[Feuer Frei!]

Update 1 August, 2011:

The so-called “Super Congress” that is about to be created with the debt ceiling vote will have powers far beyond just controlling the nation’s purse strings – its authority will extend to target the second amendment – eviscerating normal protections that prevent unconstitutional legislation from being fast-tracked into law.
As the Huffington Post reported last month (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html?ref=email_share), the debt deal that has already been passed by the House and faces the Senate tomorrow will create an unconstitutional “Super Congress” that will be comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats and granted “extraordinary new powers” to quickly force legislation through both chambers.
Legislation decided on by the Super Congress would be immune from amendment and lawmakers would only be able to register an up or down vote, eliminating the ability to filibuster. The Speaker of the House would effectively lose the power to prevent unpopular bills from making it to the House floor.



But far from just being a committee that would make recommendations concerning the debt ceiling, the body is now to be granted “even greater super powers, according to multiple news reports and congressional aides with knowledge of the plan,” writes Michael McAuliff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/31/super-congress-debt-ceiling-deficit-deal_n_914272.html).
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled no punches in making it plain that the Super Congress would have supreme authority. “The joint committee — there are no constraints,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”
That includes introducing laws to restrict the second amendment, states a Gun Owners of America bulletin (http://gunowners.org/a08012011.htm), warning that the body would be “a super highway for gun control legislation”.
“Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty — all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours,” states the GOA release.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed Reid’s sentiment, asserting that the Super Congress was “not a commission, this is a powerful, joint committee.”


The Obama administration has already indicated that it will take the deciding vote as the de facto 13th member of the Super Congress. During his press briefing today, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the government would work with the Super Congress to hike taxes (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001820/-White-House-wants-Super-Congress-to-take-Bush-tax-cuts-off-table-for-2012) in 2012 and beyond.
Barack Obama has already exercised his fetish for executive autonomy (http://www.infowars.com/obama-is-establishing-an-executive-dictatorship/) by launching the attack on Libya without Congressional approval, bypassing Congress and having the EPA declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, as well as the appointment of ten state governors directly selected by him who will work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.
The administration’s zeal to target the second amendment “under the radar,” as Obama promised earlier this year (http://www.infowars.com/obama-working-under-the-radar-to-sneak-attack-second-amendment/), has also manifested itself in the form of ATF harassment of gun owners who purchase two or more firearms (http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-atf-intimidates-gun-owners-with-home-visits/), despite the fact that the law to mandate such a policy failed to pass (http://www.guns.com/gun-control-advocates-win-eleventh-hour-victory-to-remove-long-gun-tracking-from-bafte-funding.html).
The establishment of a “Super Congress” will completely demolish the credibility and the authority of the system of elected representatives. It represents another final nail in the coffin of the American Republic and its replacement with an executive dictatorship run by the political elite.


SOURCE (http://www.infowars.com/super-congress-to-target-second-amendment/)

[Snestorm]

It's been a while but, is the time for another American Revolution drawing near?

[Seth8530]

So, what makes the super congress legal.. What precedent is it based on? IF something goes through a committee does that mean a vote can go thru with a simple majority ruling? could someone enlighten me?

[frau kaleun]

Seriously, we the free people of America have nowhere left to go unless the South succeeds again.

I have some bad news for you. They didn't succeed the first time.

To Alabama?

:rotfl2:

I've lived in Alabama, son. You're welcome to it. :up:

[Snestorm]

I've lived in Alabama, son. You're welcome to it. :up:

North Alabama: OK.
South Alabama: No thank you.

[TorpX]

I think the real purpose of the "super-congress" is the same as it is for the past "blue ribbon commitees". That is, to hand off/put off/delay/evade any unpopular decisions, so they can all be re-elected.

It may be constitutional, but it stinks.

If anything good comes out of this unholy compromise, it would be people getting sick of this nonsense and defeating some of the old congressional dinosaurs and putting some new people in there.

I consider it a major flaw of the present congress, that eventhough many new people (especially Tea Party members), were elected, we have the same old fossils in the leadership positions. (This is where the real power is.) They have their positions because of seniority and have spent their whole political lives spending money to get elected, cutting deals, compromising on principle, and participating in various un-constitutional schemes. Can we be surprised, that they continue to do so now?

[Takeda Shingen]

It's been a while but, is the time for another American Revolution drawing near?

Probably not. We don't all heed the patriot's call.

[Sailor Steve]

Probably not. We don't all heed the patriot's call.
Slick. I see what you did there. :rock:

[Snestorm]

Probably not. We don't all heed the patriot's call.

Obviously.