There needs to be a constitutional challenge to the powers of the "super congress". The

powers that have been afforded them are scary illegal. Just listening to Bill Press as he outlines what they can do. It is the most asinine formation of a committee ever.

if you count the Teapots) can't work together. What makes them think fewer members can do it? It shouldn't be necessary to do this and it isn't. Will it be called The Second Coming of Congress?

Before you answer, let me remind you of Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:



The House and Senate have constituted a joint committee and agreed pursuant to their rules to allow no amendment to any bill that comes out of this committee. Where do you see a Constitutional violation?

can be challenged. If those on the right can challenge day after day the legitimacy of the birth of the President of the United State with frivolity and suck in men and women who have declared themselves intellectuals with degrees from major institutions,then the legitimacy of the "super congress" can be questioned.

I have no idea why Boehner decided to call this a "super-committee" or "super-congress" or whatever, except maybe to scare people. Joint select committees with pre-agreed limited amendment and debate have existed since the very early days of Congress. They are how we close military bases. They are how we passed Health Care Reform. They are how we reconcile the budget most years. This isn't new, it doesn't have any super powers, and whatever it passes still has to go through Congress.

It may cut SS (doubtful, see below) or Medicare. It will probably slash discretionary spending, which doesn't matter (see farther below). Whatever it does still has to pass Congress (see farthest below).

Now, why do I think they won't touch SS? Because cutting it, even though it would decrease the actual amount of borrowing in the future, would not reduce on-book "deficits" (there's a difference between how much we actually borrow and what we write down as our deficit for a given year), so it wouldn't help them hit their target and would be politically painful. Getting Congress to do something politically painful without an on-book benefit is basically impossible.

Medicare they will probably "cut" in the same way the initial deal "cut" it: by taking savings already in Health Care Reform and writing them down as part of the budget. This will give them on-book deficit reduction so there's an incentive for it to happen.

Discretionary spending will be absolutely slashed. To the bone. Defense and non-defense alike. This doesn't matter, because this Congress doesn't have any power to limit future discretionary spending; all this will be is an earnest request from the current Congress to future Congresses to not spend so much, and future Congresses will ignore it like they always have (we do this every decade or so).

Finally, whatever they pass has to still pass both chambers of Congress, which is why the committee ultimately doesn't matter: if there are votes in Congress to cut Medicare, those cuts can happen without the committee, and if there aren't, they won't happen with the committee.

defense automatically kick in. That is why the power in the hands of a few, negates the power of both houses of Congress.

The super committee is a specific way to replace those cuts with a different set of cuts/taxes/changes. The full house and senate will have an opportunity to replace what they've already passed with the legislation this committee draws up (assuming the committee can get 7 members to agree).

The house and senate can also create other legislation outside of the committee to do the same thing or just to repeal some or all of the cuts in the trigger. Unlikely, but it's not like what they already passed is written in stone with no options other than the super committee.

Any member who claims they did not expect the trigger cuts to occur is either lying or an idiot. In the current environment they have to assume there's a decent chance that anything they pass will stand if it depends on a bipartisan committee plus the votes of both the house and senate plus the president's signature to replace it.

The automatic cuts only kick in if the committee doesn't produce anything. The bill does not have to pass, and Obama can still veto it.

do we have of him vetoing a bill..

you can point out that they are wrong.

As part of the debt-ceiling law President Obama signed last Tuesday, the trigger will be activated if the panel of 12 lawmakers can’t agree on at least $1.2 trillion in savings by Nov. 23 or if Congress rejects a plan they propose.



These all have some version of that quote (and the president does need to sign it also)

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20110811/OPINION01/108110314

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-08/former-cbo-directors-say-spending-cut-trigger-may-fire-blanks.html

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-09/news/29868961_1_debt-ceiling-peter-orszag-robert-reischauer



It doesn't have to be the super committee's bill. While any bill they pass can modify previous legislation (e.g. stop the triggers) it's unlikely they could get a bill passed on time. They fast-tracked the rules for their bill to get it done in time (and also to avoid individual responsibility on the vote). They didn't want the debate to go into next year (campaign season) so they set the deadline this year.

The Congss -- your elected officials -- voted to implement these policies. No different than other legislation that says that something happens if something else happens first. And, as for the "up or down vote" requirement, no different than hundreds of bills that are voted on with limits on the ability to make amendments.

represent you, fall short.

....without an amendment-free, limited-debate, filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.

I've seen this come up a few times. The fact is that the "joint committee" and the cuts have ALREADY been approved by both houses of congress and Obama.

Congress agreed to the cuts in defense and social programs. Those cuts can be averted if Congress acts to cut elsewhere. Congress has created a committee to make recommendations for those cuts.

That's why this whole thing is theater. Whatever "cuts" get passed by this simply show up as the baseline in the next CR or budget negotiations. Congress can't make future discretionary spending cuts. That's why it's called "discretionary".

...name it; it's the coinage of one HuffPo reporter.

Remember there's unconstitutional -- and there's DUnconstitutional. The latter means "I don't like it."

Someone who knows what they're talking about on the subject: The Monkey Cage's Sarah Binder.

But anything can be challenged, so why not waste lots of time, money, and energy?

congress passed and the president signed a law that eventually triggers across-the-board spending cuts.

the law provides that the across-the-board spending cuts can suspended if another law is enacted that modifies the budget according to certain paramters (a trillion in spending cuts, etc.)

ALL the super-committee does is draft a bill that the congress will vote on, just like any other committee. any other committee can do the same thing, and hell, you don't even need a committee to do that, any congresscritter can draft a bill and have congress vote on it (technically the rules committees schedule it or not, but you get the idea).

there have been joint committees before and there will be again. the only reason this one seems scary is because they're being asked to draft up a bill that's guaranteed to be terrible and painful, and if congress doesn't do anything, the across-the-board spending cuts that are now on autopilot would also be terrible and painful.

but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this arrangement.

it's terrible policy, but it's not even remotely unconstitutional.


edit: ok, very strictly speaking, join committees do have nominal powers, e.g., to hire staff and maybe to call subpoena witnesses and so on.

rules about how their House or Senate is run, how are you going to challenge that it's not Constitutional?