| Author | Message | ||
     Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: I'm not going to post on this thread again, because I think my point is clear enough that you get it but somehow disagree. This bill does nothing to take Congress' power away. Twelve members of congress will be selected to serve in a committee (which you are calling a "Super Congress" for some reason). They will argue and debate and write a plan for cutting the deficit. They will then present it to ALL OF CONGRESS who will vote yes or no - first in the house and then in the senate. If EITHER HOUSE doesn't get a majority, the bill will die. How is that not Congressional action? Also, just for the record, nothing in this bill prohibits any group outside of the 12 to bring their own bill to the floor for debate and vote. | ||
| Sifo |
This bill does nothing to take Congress' power away. That is clearly a false statement. Filibuster and the amendment process are 2 glaring examples. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Okay. I lied about not posting anymore on this thread. Tell me where it says Filibuster in the Constitution. Tell me where the amendment process is set forth in the Constitution. There may be an issue here (maybe, but i don't see one), but it certainly is not a Constitutional one. Trying to make every little problem that someone has a Constitutional Issue really waters down REAL Constitutional Issues. | ||
| Sifo |
You said "This bill does nothing to take Congress' power away". I provided 2 examples. Those are set forth in the rules of the Senate and the House. Bypassing the rules of House or Senate for business set forth in the Constitution such as setting the budget certainly does make it a question of Constitutionality. They can set up all sorts of groups to do all sorts of things, but not to do the things that the Constitution says the Congress shall do. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, I see plenty of trying to defend it as not being unconstitutional, but I haven't seen where someone is stating why they actually think it's a good thing. That's what I would really like to hear at this point. Why is this better than having the entire Congress involved? | ||
| Blake |
Justin, Judge Napolitano answers your question in the following: | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Blake: Jude Napolitano doesn't cite the Article and Sectin of the Constitution he relies on. I re-read the Constitution today to see if I could find a violation. I couldn't, which is why I'm asking which provision folks think this violates. Sifo set one forth, but I think it is pretty obvious that the Article and Section he cited doesn't quite say what he thought it said. Sifo, your examples are of eliminating the right of groups of congressman (filabustering, amending the proposals of others, etc.), but not of eliminating powers of Congress as a whole. And those rights (the right to filibuster, the right to amend proposals of others) are not Constitutionally granted. That said, I think you pose a good question. After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that I do think that this part of the bill is a good thing (although I think the bill, as a whole, sucks). My reasoning (for this party being a good thing) is that (1) the 12 are apparently going to be bi-partisan; and (2)the 12 are responsible for writing a bill that they think actually has a shot of passing by a majority vote and that will reduce the deficit (which is what most of you argue for regularly), as opposed to one that has no chance at passing but which "looks good" to their respective bases. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Oh, and to the "better than having the entire congress involved" point, I think its already been said. Bills almost never (maybe even never) have the entire congress involved until they come up for a vote. The only real change here is that this bill calls for "up and down" votes. In other words, just say you likey or you no likey. | ||
| Sifo |
The Constitution gives the power to Congress. That means the powers available to Congress. The Constitution allows Congress so latitude in the rules it runs by. Those rules are implicit when the Constitution specifies that Congress be responsible for something. This bill changes that in a substantial way. Interesting point about the group of 12 being bi-partisan. I have a big problem with that. Congress isn't necessarily bi-partisan. It's open to any party that can convince the electorate to vote them in. A big part of the problem is that we have 2 parties that above all else don't want a third party to become a viable party. That would create a situation where no party has solid control and real competition of ideas will occur. This "bi-partisan" group of 12 ensures that any other party is locked out completely. That third party will have no power of input, debate, filibuster, or amendment. That will shut a third party almost completely out of the crafting of legislation. This is not at all even close to what the original intent of the Constitution was. I'm very glad you brought up this train of thought. Anyone have any ideas on why such an idea may sound appealing to some Democrats and Republicans alike right now? I think the Tea Party has them all shitting their pants right now. Suddenly this power grab makes much more sense. Oh, and to the "better than having the entire congress involved" point, I think its already been said. Bills almost never (maybe even never) have the entire congress involved until they come up for a vote. The only real change here is that this bill calls for "up and down" votes. In other words, just say you likey or you no likey. You keep ignoring the fact that bills get debated, amended and potentially filibustered in open sessions of Congress even though they are initially crafted by small groups. That is a huge difference. | ||
| Ulyranger |
I think this is just peachy, really. A "committee" of super legislators hand picked for their inherent qualities to craft back room legislation that'll be just "too big to fail" and must just pass it or Granny will starve, children will die in the streets, fill in your own personal tragedy here.... Now if only we could make them permanently in session, get around those pesky elections and stifle all critical debate......so they can just get the job done.......get America back on track.....jobs, jobs, jobs. Constitutional? Are we really even concerned about that antique anymore? How is it remotely relevant to where we are now? I wonder if I can get an upper management position in the new Civilian Conservation Corps? | ||
| Moxnix |
Uh, doesn't the current wind from DC tell us our Constitution is a "living document?" Read: changeable to a given ideology's whim. Congress, in both houses, continually operates outside its scope, depending on what they want to jam down out throats. These jaybirds are mostly children of the 1960s and 1970s, keeping their emotions in a perennial childhood that meets their convoluted view of what America is. I want my money back. | ||
| Kenm123t |
When get the weasels out our first amendment to the Constitution is No Lawyer or Attorney is eligible for public office once your down that path you can serve but only as an employee. We have too many lawyers in the government. The purpose of representitive government is every one gets to serve and a man will not raise a a rod against himself. We have allowed the petty fogging legal foxes unfettered access to the hen house. I went to Stetson for law the longer I went the more I smelt the stench of hell. Oh and the BAR will no longer propose judicial appointments or campaign for a Judicial canidate. No more advertising either. | ||
| Blake |
Yes I recall that he did Justin. "All legislative power shall rest in congress", or something close to that, meaning all of congress, not just a select committee, and meaning all legislative power, including the ability to debate and amend. Now, would you please show me the "right to abortion" enumerated in the constitution. How about the right to a cell phone or broadband internet? It's time. (Message edited by Blake on August 04, 2011) | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Blake: On your first point, I think you are really stretching when you take the position that the words "All legislative power shall rest in congress" means that the entire congress must draft, debate, amend, and adopt each law. If that were the case, every law I know of would be unconstitutional because they were drafted by a subset of congress, and some others would be unconstitutional because they were adopted as written and not debated or amended. To take the position that the Congress dictates that every bill be written by, debated by, and amended by the entire congress is just silly - and it has NEVER been done that way. To take the position that members have a Constitutionally-granted right to filibuster is even more silly. But, you don't want to talk about this any more. You must have gone back through the Constitution and couldn't find what you were looking for. But you didn't see anything about abortion, so you'd rather talk about that now. A little "turn of the tables" if you will. Good work. The so-called "right to abortion" is (according to the U.S. Supreme Court) based in our right to privacy (don't attack yet, keep reading). Interestingly, you won't find a right to privacy in the Constitution either. The Court gets there through the Bill of Rights, which reflects Madison's concern for protecting specific aspects of privacy: privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. Then they hook all that to the 9th Amendment,which states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but the Court interpreted it as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments i.e. The "right to abortion." (again, don't attack yet, keep reading). Personally, I think they used the wrong hook. I think you've got to make a BIG jump from "privacy" to "abortion" (maybe as big as you have to jump to get from "all legislative power belongs to congress" to "all of congress must be fully involved in all legislation through every step in the process). Instead, they should have used "natural rights," which are generally understood to be those inalienable rights which are considered to be self-evident and universal and which are discussed in the Declaration of Independence. One of them is Liberty - the condition in which humans are able to govern themselves and to behave according to their own free will. It is upon the principal of Liberty where I would have hung a woman's right to choose had I been looking for a place to hang it. (Okay, go ahead and attack). | ||
| Reepicheep |
Well stated Hono, and a useful foundation for a great debate. My objection to abortion has nothing to with the woman getting the abortion. If it was just her, it would rightfully be none of my business (unless I was forced to fund it, but that's another discussion). It has to do with the woman being aborted, who if left unmolested for 9 months would be likely to lead a perfectly normal and healthy life. Given the necessity to choose between the two, the less invasive choice is to say the woman who is pregnant cannot choose to terminate the life of the woman she is carrying. If there are extenuating circumstances that might change, but again, thats a different topic. My other beef has to do with the Hippocratic oath. It clearly states that "when in doubt, err towards clearly doing no harm". You shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor without following that oath, and that makes it pretty clear that in grey areas like this, you don't whip out the power tools and stop a beating heart. | ||
| Court |
It's going to be interesting to watch the market today. We've been on the road since the wee hours and have been watching the European futures. When you see gold rising (up $8 early) and oil falling (off $1) you are in for a wild ride. I'm not sure having a "neighborhood organizer" is so smart. Let's see who he blames this on. | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Reepicheep: Your point is very well taken, and really highlights why this is a debate. Some reasonable folks believe that life starts at conception, and that natural rights therefor adhere at conception, and that the fertilized egg is on equal footing as the now-pregnant woman. Others think life starts at birth, and that the pregnant woman's rights trump until that point. Most are somewhere in the middle. Give the wide spectrum of beliefs, I personally think the Court did as good a job as it could have in coming up with the "viability rule." It might not be "right," but on a topic like this there is no "right" in everyone's eyes. So, the Court decided that pre-viability the woman can terminate. Post-viability, she can only do so in certain limited circumstances. That rule essentially kicks the can to science to determine "what and when is viability." And so now, that is more or less what we argue about. | ||
| Sifo |
On your first point, I think you are really stretching when you take the position that the words "All legislative power shall rest in congress" means that the entire congress must draft, debate, amend, and adopt each law. If that were the case, every law I know of would be unconstitutional because they were drafted by a subset of congress, and some others would be unconstitutional because they were adopted as written and not debated or amended. To take the position that the Congress dictates that every bill be written by, debated by, and amended by the entire congress is just silly - and it has NEVER been done that way. To take the position that members have a Constitutionally-granted right to filibuster is even more silly. Honolulu, You are purposefully misstating what has been said by claiming that anyone has said that ever member of "the entire congress must draft, debate, amend, and adopt each law". If you want to have a real discussion, stop the BS. No one is saying that every member MUST be involve in any of that. Every member MUST have the ability to debate, amend, filibuster, etc. as dictated by the rules of the House and Senate. Anything less than that and you no longer have Congress crafting the legislation. I'm sure you can see the difference, as you are consistently misstating the position you argue against. Doing so demonstrates that you have lost the debate. To take the position that members have a Constitutionally-granted right to filibuster is even more silly. Filibuster is granted under the rules of Congress under the Constitution. When legislation is being drafted outside of the rules of Congress you have legislation that is being drafted by a body other than Congress. The Constitution give the power to legislate only to Congress, therefor under the current rules of Congress, YES, filibuster is in fact a protected right of legislatures under the Constitution. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: If it pleases you, I'll amend my statement to say that I think you are really stretching when you take the position that the words "All legislative power shall rest in congress" means that every member MUST have the ability to debate, amend, filibuster, etc. each law. PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Everything else I said stands as written. On your second point: It might be fun to say things like "Filibuster is granted under the rules of Congress under the Constitution," but saying it doesn't make it so. The Constitution doesn't set forth the administrative rules and procedures of Congress. Instead, it gives certain powers to Congress, one of which happens to be the power to make its own administrative rules and procedures (i.e., how bills are written, whether they are openly debated on the floor, whether they can be amended once presented, etc.) ALL OF THAT IS OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION AND INSTEAD IN THE RULES OF CONGRESS, AS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS AND CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME. I think you are forgetting that this Bill was adopted by Congress. The fact that it changes the administrative rules by which Congress operates with respect to a few future bills does not make it unconstitutional. If you are really stuck on the concept that filibuster, bill amendment, etc. is a Constitutionally protected power of Congress, you can end this debate by simply copying and pasting the Article and Section of the Constitution that you rely on. Hint: You can't do it, cause it does not exist. | ||
| Boltrider |
We deserve a downgrade of our credit. A debt/GDP ratio of close to 100% is embarrassing for a country whose supposed to be the economic engine of the world. | ||
| Sifo |
If you are really stuck on the concept that filibuster, bill amendment, etc. is a Constitutionally protected power of Congress, you can end this debate by simply copying and pasting the Article and Section of the Constitution that you rely on. Hint: You can't do it, cause it does not exist. I'm only stuck on those things because those are the rules of Congress. How about you show me the Article and Section that gives the power of legislation to a group of 12. Hint: You can't do it, cause it does not exist. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Now we are getting somewhere. We agree that those are the rules of Congress for the vase majority of bills. Now if we could only agree that those rules are not set forth in the Constitution, but were instead adopted as administrative rules and regulations by Congress, which has now adopted an amendment to those rules and regulations for a select set of bills going forward to try to accomplish a reduction in the deficit. I understand that you don't like the idea of this committee of 12 CONGRESSMEN drafting a bill that will then be presented to the FULL CONGRESS for approval, but not liking it doesn't make it unconstitutional. I wouldn't be arguing with you about this at all if you hadn't taken the position that this is unconstitutional. It just isn't the case. "How about you show me the Article and Section that gives the power of legislation to a group of 12. Hint: You can't do it, cause it does not exist." You are correct sir, and I haven't claimed that this group of 12 have that Constitutionally granted authority. Their authority is based in a bill passed by congress and signed in to law by the president. Their authority is not unbridled, and it is not the "end of democracy." Oh, and it isn't unconstitutional, no many how many times you say it is.} | ||
| Sifo |
You are correct sir, and I haven't claimed that this group of 12 have that Constitutionally granted authority. Their authority is based in a bill passed by congress and signed in to law by the president. Their authority is not unbridled, and it is not the "end of democracy." Oh, and it isn't unconstitutional, no many how many times you say it is. Here's where you go astray. Section 8 specifically states Congress's powers.
Not among these powers is the power to give these powers to an appointed group of 12 individuals, in a way that eliminates most of the other elected congressmen from the process. This goes against the entire concept of equal representation of all states in the legislative process that is implicit in defining the make up of the House and Senate. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"Not among these powers is the power to give these powers to an appointed group of 12 individuals, in a way that eliminates most of the other elected congressmen from the process. This goes against the entire concept of equal representation of all states in the legislative process that is implicit in defining the make up of the House and Senate." Here's where you go astray. Article I, Section 5: Each House (speaking of the House and the Senate) may determine the Rules of its proceedings... You seam to think that this law gives unelected officials the power to write and pass any law it wants without Congressional approval and Presidential action. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional. But that isn't the case. This law, ADOPTED BY EACH HOUSE, simply changes the rules of each House's proceedings with respect to certain bills. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. I feel like I'm making the same point over and over again, so I'm really and truly done making it. It is what it is. Continue to disagree if you want to, but the next time you decide something is unconstitutional, you should probably have some Constitutional authority to back up your claim. | ||
| Macbuell |
Honolulu ... don't waste your breath. It isn't worth it. In some sense, an enraged and attentive citizen is better than a indifferent citizen, even if the outrage is a little off base. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Honu, good point. My concern with the viability rule is that the criteria for viablity, if applied consistently, would mean that you could murder me if I am on life support, but with a great prognosis, without my consent. So the rule should be "likely outcome without the intervention in dispute", not "viability at this moment". Particularly since the whole debate centers around concerns about the intervention. Great discussion! Thank you! (Edit: corrected typo.) (Message edited by reepicheep on August 04, 2011) | ||
| Sifo |
And you seem to feel that Congress can simply write rules to give their legislative authority to other bodies that they define. That simply isn't the case, especially when it conflicts with the whole idea of a representative government. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: Now you are talking about your opinion, and I'm okay with that. My problem with your position thus far has been your decision to use the term "unconstitutional," which actually means something to me. | ||
| Sifo |
A fertilized egg is normally "viable" if left alone. If it fails to be "viable" then abortion is redundant. |
