Can anyone who thinks the "super congress" is unconstitutional...

...please explain to me what exact part of the Constitution you think it's violating?

Are you saying every committee has to have every Representative on it or the equal representation part is violated? (Also there's not really an explicit "equal representation" clause in the Constitution.)

And there IS an Equal Protection clause.

So how is Congress supposed to get anything done without committees?

it's a super committee, and if it SUPER CEDES the people's elected officials, than...um....

Maybe we could let the judges judge?

All legislation passes through a committee. Can you explain what's so particularly different about this one?

Congress routinely does work via committees and subcommittees with both democrats and republicans. They hold hearings, debate, and send legislation to the main body of the House for a vote. This is constitutional.

The Super Congress is a variation of the committees. The way I understand it is that it recommends and the House votes on its recommendations. It may be unconstitutional if it had the power to vote and enact legislation without participation of the full membership.

But neither of those "ifs" is true.

Please tell me more.

It's six people in a room who sketch out some ideas, then it gets voted on. They have NO power to enact legislation on their own.

I likened them to another Congressional Committee.

Isn't that what you're saying?

and the President can veto it.

roughly divided based on the overall number of seats each party has.

This super congress insures that no matter how small the GOP gets, it will still have a stranglehold on government.

Now I think I get some of the concern.

This isn't going to keep going; it's a one-off commission.

eg, the Permanent Joint Select Committee on Intelligence. And they're a lot harder to form; an ad-hoc committee is just for this Congress, doesn't need a dedicated budget for its operations, and can be formed (and often is formed) essentially at will.

Also, even it was just for this congress, the cuts are supposed to last for ten years.

The whole thing is a dog and pony show.

by having the 'trigger' pulled by a "non-member" of Congress would violate the part in the Constitution that says that only 'The Congress' has authority regarding spending.

The person that would be pulling the trigger if the committee doesn't come to an agreement within the specified time period would be a 'non-member' of Congress.

The "person" pulling the trigger is Congress, because they wrote the law that created the trigger.

It was what the attorneys were saying today on the news.

It would be a NON-member of Congress that would be pulling the trigger that would put the 50% defense cuts and 50% across the board domestic spending cuts into effect.

THEY are the ones that said 'that part' (regarding the 'non-member of Congress) is most likely unconstitutional, not me ;)

The internet may be made of cats, but (especially lately) the TV is made of nonsense.

:hi:

Since each of these include sequestration (triggers). In voting for the Budget act today and yesterday, it is Congress itself that is granting spending authority on the triggers.

This is an ancient maxim of Roman law which roughly translates to "a delegated power must not be redelegated."

Our political system regards the lawmaking power of Congress as a delegation of power to it by the people, it follows that a delegated power must not be redelegated. The main reason for constraining the delegation of power is to preserve accountability. If Congress delegates its policy making authority and cedes its ordinary rules regarding amendment and filibuster to a Super Congress, how could the voting public make government responsive to their wishes on public policy. In other words, implicit in the concern about delegation is not only the value of accountability, but also the concept of legislative authority and creativity in representatives sent to Congress from all parts of the country, not merely to vote up or down on legislation that is not amendable, but where a no vote amounts to triggering some other legislation for which the Congressman also rejected.

Article I,Section I prescribes, "All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." There is no specific constitutional authority for a legislative super Congress.

While I admit that this may be a bit of a stretch, I didn't want the sound of crickets to start getting under your skin.

E.g., post roads. The Postmaster General is delegated that authority.

Delegation is one think....delegating the very thing that the Constitution created Congress to do may be another. Congress, and only Congress, and only Congress as it is fully comprised of a full complement of elected officials pursuant to the guidelines of the Constitution...only that body, as a Constitutional body, has legislative power.

Even when Congress has tried to give that power away to someone as big as the President, (ie. the line item veto), the Supreme Court has ruled that only Congress, as provided for in the Constitution, has the legislative power, and Congress can not give that power away, even when they try to create legislation to give it away. The Supreme Court has said that legislative attempts to give that power away are unconstitutional.

Congress simply created a committee. The recommendations of the committee must be approved by the full body.

And who appoints the members? If there is ONE progressive on that committee, I'll eat my hat.

Because it is way above my pay grade and I'd like to know the answer.

Half Democrats, half Republicans. They hammer out a package of ideas they can agree on which saves $1.8 trillion over ten years, either by cuts, or taxes, or both. Then that package gets voted on by the full Congress, without them getting the chance to amend it, haggle, or alter the deal. Either it passes or it doesn't.

Super Congress?

It's one (of many) joint select committees formed on an ad-hoc basis to address a particular issue.

I've already got one going on the subject, one that you've posted to. Why are you running away from that?

I haven't seen anyone give me a particular article of the Constitution they claim it violates, and I've explicitly pointed to the article of the Constitution that allows it (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings")

And why you think it is a good idea? Passive aggressive shit like this is old, tired, and made out of cliquish divisive games. In my opinion I'd rather just read your opinion.

If you'll recall, this is how we passed health care reform.

It's also explicitly Constitutional since each chamber has power over its own rules of debate.

So it is aConstitutional, outside the Constitution rather than Unconstitutional.

It is a bad idea. It is created so that blanket cuts can be forced on the budget, cuts that the Senate would not pass and the President possibly would not sign.

Our system requires compromise, and this forces the U.S. government to make uncompromising cuts that Republicans could not pass. It is the goal of Republicans to force the government to act only as Republicans want. This is another step to doing that.

"U.S. Constitution Section 8

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."

It is still a bad idea.

through people who may or may not have any committee experience working with entitlements a la SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

"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."

but it is a bad idea that cedes power to cut the budget to Republicans who could not pass those kinds of draconian cuts.

The chambers can set whatever rules for themselves they want, and constitute committees in any way they see fit.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

bad way to govern. No accountability, fast tracking, no amendments...who gives a shit that it's constitutional. It still smells. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us/politics/02panel.html?pagewanted=2&tntemail0=y&emc=tnt

You will know the members of the Joint Committee, know how they vote on the recommendations, know how the full Congress votes on the recommendations, know whether the President vetoes or not. At each stage, the people can hold the representatives accountable for their votes. In what way is it unaccountable? Because other representatives don't get amendments?

may or may not have any experience working with.

Here are some concerns from Dems in the House:

Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, supports the overall deal as a way to avoid a default on federal debt obligations. But Mr. Andrews said: “I am very uneasy about the joint committee for a number of reasons. It takes people decades to learn the nuances of Medicare and Medicaid.”

It will, he said, be difficult for the 12-member panel to recommend changes in the intricate reimbursement formulas used to pay doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and other providers in these programs.

The procedures used to close military bases have been cited as a precedent for the deficit reduction committee. But the mandate of the new panel would be much broader.

“It could deal with the entire U.S. economy,” Mr. Andrews said.

Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, said: “The joint committee usurps the legislative function. I don’t think it’s prudent or smart.”

Mr. Ellison said he worried that the committee would not adequately protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us/politics/02panel.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail0=y&emc=tnt

Define unaccountable.

by the people who will be asked to vote for or against it. How is a 12 member group going to represent the entire economic interests of the entire country?

just like any other member of Congress. The fact that there are no amendments doesn't make the committee unaccountable. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

You're arguing (quite well) that it's a bad idea. I'm not seeing anywhere that it's outside of Congress's power to do. I also keep coming back to the fact that it's done nearly every year.

This is how we passed health care reform. Fortunately it will be our turn to stonewall since the trigger is better than the best thing the GOP is likely to offer.

I want these programs to be looked at individually, decisions being made by proper committees who are used to dealing with these programs...not in the context of a deficit reduction package. If you couple them with deficit reduction, you are just cutting them.

Medicaid I think is more or less broken whatever we do. SS is fine as it is.

Is it a good thing to concentrate that much power into the hands of a handful of people? I don't get why you are so in love with this idea.

I said it's clearly Constitutional.

Apparently that's all that matters to a certain faction 'round here.

It is vile and stupid and destructive of what remains of representative democracy. It is probably not unconstitutional.

And will most assuredly be abused.

"...some states may not have consented to unequal suffrage in the Senate."
http://my.firedoglake.com/kellycanfielddenver/2011/07/27/call-to-action-no-super-congress/

You can't fault them for trying, although they could as easily argue that plum committee assignments generally deprive states of equal suffrage.

In my naïve Schoolhouse Rock-like understanding of these things, I'd probably venture the Origination Clause as a relevant passage:



I realize mine is a losing argument, because a) the Court rarely touches this issue with a lightning rod, b) "All Bills for raising Revenue" doesn't necessarily concern debt limit increases ("Historically, it has been the custom that the House has originated legislation to provide for the issuance of federal debt or to establish a limit on the level of federal debt. Neither chamber has asserted that public debt legislation is subject to the origination clause, however" http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2323/m1/1/high_res_d/RL31399_2002May06.pdf), c) the House would presumably vote on these bills before the Senate, which probably satisfies the most literal interpretation of this clause (since it doesn't matter if the bill "originates" in the Treasury Department or a lobbyist's desk or the Senate for that matter, as long as the bill isn't "blue slip" worthy), so... I doubt Congress would need a constitutional amendment to outsource their legislative authority so long as they reserved the right to rubber stamp the result, but it's hard to see how a self-imposed limitation on information and debate is a step forward, much less devolving a power once considered the prerogative of the largest, messiest branch of government to a hand-picked bicameral committee.

The bill will actually be arising in the House, and if it's like every other JSC with budget authority the House members will have seniority in the commission.

like the FED with monetary policy.

"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office...."

Not sure if this would hold water in a court, but it seems to me that Congress is abdicating its responsibility. If this super committee fails to produce legislation, it triggers budgetary cuts...which sounds a lot like enacting legislation without the direct participation of Congress and neatly making sure that no members of congress outside of this committee are accountable for the legislation itself.

with an up or down vote, they are in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 7, Clause 1.