| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Sifo: I'm kind of tired (and more than a little bored) of "explaining" things to you. If you were willing to see why you are wrong when you are wrong, you'd already have seen it here. You can tell yourself you've "won" if you'd like. All you have to do to prove me wrong is explain how a two tiered Congress is Constitutional. So far you have completely avoided that question. | ||
| Dannyd |
It still has to be voted on by Congress for any bill they propose to be made into law. And as you have seen neither side has any advantage right now as the House is controlled by Repubs and the Senate by Dems. So please explain how they are going to get a bill passed without all the members of congress having a say as they all have to vote on it. Or do you think it will be like voting on a Pope where they will lock them in a room and nobody can come in or out until they have the bill done?  Do you really think the group of 12 is just going to propose a bill without hearing from all the other members of Congress as well as the hundreds of lobbyists that will be involved. Don't be so naieve. (Message edited by dannyd on August 04, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Justin, 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. You are confusing the right to draft/author, amend, debate, vote on legislation with an obligation to draft/author, amend, debate. There is no such obligation to author legislation, just a right to author legislation, and every congressman enjoys that right, just as every congressman enjoys the right to debate, ammend, and vote on legislation. With this new gang of twelve proposal, what every congressman will not enjoy is the right to debate or amend any legislation from this new so-called super-congress. In that, the law may fail the constitutionality test. If you want to argue it further, then take it up with former federal judge Napolitano. He's way better versed in constitutionality than I. I brought the abortion issue into the debate to see if you could find a right to it in the constitution as you are so adamantly demanding that others show you where the right of congressmen to debate and/or amend legislation rests. One of the two is MUCH more clear than the other. The abortion issue was wrongly decided, and justices who decided for the majority even admitted so after the fact. They failed to consider the rights of the unborn baby. They were duped into believing that unborn babies are not human beings. They were lied deceived horribly. It's how evil works. (Message edited by blake on August 04, 2011) | ||
| Dannyd |
BTW, Congress will always have the ability to not pass any bill that comes out of this committee in which case automatic austerity measures will be implemented which will most likely affect defense spending, Medicare, and Social Security. It is an option that Congress can use if they do not like the committee. Like I said, quit buying into the conspiracy theories. There are plenty of bad things being done behind closed doors already that you nor I will ever know about. Did you see that the married Congressman who got caught having sex with the 20 some year old girl is resigning. Best part is he will get a $900,000 pension!! That is the crap we should be complaining about!!! | ||
| Xdigitalx |
The Dirty Dozen is a stupid idea. Aren't they just ... 12 of the current congress? What about their regular jobs that they represent,... will someone fill that seat in regular congress? Can we have a Secret Seven watch over the Dirty Dozen? | ||
| Sifo |
It still has to be voted on by Congress for any bill they propose to be made into law. And as you have seen neither side has any advantage right now as the House is controlled by Repubs and the Senate by Dems. And the vote is the ONLY part of the process that hasn't been messed with. So please explain how they are going to get a bill passed without all the members of congress having a say as they all have to vote on it. Or do you think it will be like voting on a Pope where they will lock them in a room and nobody can come in or out until they have the bill done? It could be done the old fashioned way where competing ideas are brought to the floor, debated, amended, debated, amended, until you have legislation that is palatable to the majority of the representatives. That is the intent of our system of a representative government. Do you really think the group of 12 is just going to propose a bill without hearing from all the other members of Congress as well as the hundreds of lobbyists that will be involved. Don't be so naieve. By all means, lets move it from the forum of public debate to back room deals that are off the record. Are you really so naive to believe that will make things better? There is still the question of how does giving unequal power to a select group of representatives pass as Constitutional? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Blake: I'm really not confusing those things. The committee of twelve have now been given the OBLIGATION to draft legislation. Everyone else still has the RIGHT to draft opposing legislation and to debate it and amend it as per the usual. They simply don't have the right to debate and amend legislation drafted by the committe of twelve and then presented for a up/down vote by the entire congress. You guys seem to think everyone else has lost their RIGHT to propose new legislation, simply because a group of twelve have been given the OBLIGATION to do so. Anyway, believe what you want. | ||
| Sifo |
Wouldn't it be far simpler to just have an "Ultimate Singularity" write all bills. Then the Congress could simply be handed out their pre-filled ballots and call it a day. | ||
| Sifo |
They simply don't have the right to debate and amend legislation drafted by the committe of twelve and then presented for a up/down vote by the entire congress. BINGO! Now if only you could explain how that unequal representation is Constitutional we could continue the conversation. Until then we are stalled. | ||
| Sifo |
You guys seem to think everyone else has lost their RIGHT to propose new legislation, simply because a group of twelve have been given the OBLIGATION to do so. And that statement is a completely dishonest representation of what has been put in front of you. I defy you to back that up. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Are you kidding me? Have you read the bill? Or have you just been listening to Rush all day? Maybe I'll just go away and let you guys agree with each other. | ||
| Sifo |
What are you responding to? My question to you, or my challenge to back up your dishonest statement? | ||
| Dannyd |
Sifo, Do you really think that any one congressman really has the ability (not the authority but the ability) to amend a bill all by him or herself? You and I both know that if his party does not agree with him they would shut them down in an instant. if they put up a fight all they would do is kill every bit of legislation that would go to help that person represented state. John McCain found out the hard way years ago that he has to tow a party line if anything is going to get done in Congress. I'm out of this as you seem to have these ideas that are being seen through rose colored glasses. | ||
| Strokizator |
Wouldn't it be far simpler to just have an "Ultimate Singularity" write all bills. Then the Congress could simply be handed out their pre-filled ballots and call it a day. I vote "PRESENT". | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, Do you really think that any one congressman really has the ability (not the authority but the ability) to amend a bill all by him or herself? You and I both know that if his party does not agree with him they would shut them down in an instant. if they put up a fight all they would do is kill every bit of legislation that would go to help that person represented state. John McCain found out the hard way years ago that he has to tow a party line if anything is going to get done in Congress. I'm out of this as you seem to have these ideas that are being seen through rose colored glasses. Why would you misrepresent anything I've said in that way? The point is that there is no amendment process at all for bills from this committee, among other limitations from normal procedures. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Which is exactly why this is an end-run around any third party ( Tea Party). It's about the establishment keeping control and thwarting any future dissenters from stirring the pot. Waikiki, explain to me why Congress has survived all these years without this special committee and suddenly, we need it. | ||
| Sifo |
Ferris, They have no answers. They are in a mode where they are blindly supporting change for the sake of change. I've asked your question a number of times with virtually no answer. I've completely lost track of how many times I've rephrased my question on how unequal representation in Congress is Constitutional. There's not even an attempt to take that on. Nothing to do from here except beat the dead horse every time it tries to get up. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Since I'm really starting to think that we've had this debate all day and you haven't even read the bill you are complaining about, let me help you out. the bill is called the "Budget Control Act Amendment." It is only 70 something pages, and is a quick read. You are up in arms about Article IV, which is entitled "Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Section 401(b) establishes the committee, provides its goal ("to reduce the deficit by $1,500,000,000,000 before 2021") and sets forth its OBLIGATIONS ("to provide recommendations and legislative language that will significantly improve the short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal Government"). Section 401(a)(4) sets forth the joint committees composition. It is to be composed of twelve. The majority leader of the Senate appoints 3 from members of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate appoints 3 from members of the Senate, the Speaker of the House sends 3, and the minority leader of the House sends 3. Section 401(b)(3)(A)(ii) provides that, not later than Octover 14 of this year, each committee of the House and the Senate (that is everybody) "may transmit to the joint committe its recomendations for changes in law to reduce the deficit consistent witht he goal described...for the joint committee's consideration. Section 401(b)(3)(B) requires that, before November 23 of this year, the joint commitee SHALL vote on a report that contains a detailed statement of its findings and recommendations AND proposed legislative language to carry out such recommendations, which shall include a statement of the deficit reduction effectuated by the legislation over the period 2012-2021. Approval of this report and proposed legislation shall be done by majority vote of the members of the commitee. Any member of the committee who gives notice of an intention to file supplemental, minority, or additional views can do so. Such views are includined in the report, and their inclusion is noted on the over. Once approved, not later than December 2 of this year, the joint commitee must submit its work product to (i) the President; (ii) the VP; (iii) the Speaker, and (iv) the Majority and Minority leaders of each House of Congress. That gets us to Sectiion 402, which is entitled "Expedited Considerations of Joint Committee Recomendations." It says that once proposed legislation is approved by the joint committee, it shall be introduced to the full Senate and the Full House of Reps, or to a subcommittee thereof if the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the HOuse so direct. If sent to a subcommittee, the subcommittee must either recommend it for adoption by the full house/senate (respectfully) without amendment or not recommend it (up or down). It has until December 9 of this year to do so. After the last committee authorized to consider the joint committee bill reports it to the House/Senate, the full House/Senate is to consider the bill. The question is to be decided up or down without intervening motion (no amendment motions, just say yes or no). The senate committee bill shall be considered as red. THERE WILL BE ALLOWED TWO HOURS IN THE HOUSE AND 30 HOURS IN THE SENATE OF DEBATE BEFORE THE VOTE. There will be no motions to reconsider. If the vote is no, the bill dies. If yes, it moves forward. The vote shall occur no later than December 23, 2011. sECTION 404: THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE ARE ENACTED BY CONGRESS as an exercise of its rulemaking power (which I've said above) will full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change those rules at any time in the same manner and to the same extent as is the case of any other rule of such House. NOTE THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN THERE THAT PROHIBITS ANYONE FROM PROPOSING THEIR OWN BUDGET CUTTING BILL OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE. READ BEFORE YOU CALL ME A LIAR. Hope this helps. Disclaimer: Typed fast, didn't correct errors. | ||
| Sifo |
NOTE THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN THERE THAT PROHIBITS ANYONE FROM PROPOSING THEIR OWN BUDGET CUTTING BILL OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE. READ BEFORE YOU CALL ME A LIAR. NOTE THAT NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT! | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Dude, you just did. I said: "Everyone else still has the RIGHT to draft opposing legislation and to debate it and amend it as per the usual. They simply don't have the right to debate and amend legislation drafted by the committe of twelve and then presented for a up/down vote by the entire congress. You guys seem to think everyone else has lost their RIGHT to propose new legislation, simply because a group of twelve have been given the OBLIGATION to do so." You responded: "And that statement is a completely dishonest representation of what has been put in front of you. I defy you to back that up." Then you followed that gem up with: "What are you responding to? My question to you, or my challenge to back up your dishonest statement?" You are unbelievable. | ||
| Sifo |
Ummm... I asked which post you were responding to. I DIDN'T claim that a member of Congress was prohibited from drafting a bill. I have never claimed that a member of Congress was prohibited from drafting a bill. Are we having the same conversation? | ||
| Sifo |
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes I did suggest that you were lying about anyone suggesting that a member of Congress was being prohibited from from drafting a bill. I didn't however suggest that any member of Congress was being prohibited from drafting a bill. Sorry for my miss understanding that bit. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
I doubt it. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't think so either. I was focused on the part about what members of Congress will be restricted from. You seem to be focused on other things. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Gee golly. Aint that sweet? I'm confused. If you know that every member of Congress can still propose a bill, what in God's name do you think the joint committee has the power to do that every member of Congress doesn't? Is it just the bit where what the joint committee proposes (after jumping through a shit ton of hoops) is entitled to a simple up down vote after 2 or 30 hours of debate (depending on which House you are in)? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I wonder if there will ever be longer Presidential term. I am thinking like 12 years. Maybe they can write it into law before 11/2012. Mm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said that all must lend a hand To make this country strong again Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said we must be fair today Equal work means equal pay Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama Yes! Mmm, mmm, mm Barack Hussein Obama | ||
| Sifo |
I'm confused. If you know that every member of Congress can still propose a bill, what in God's name do you think the joint committee has the power to do that every member of Congress doesn't? Is it just the bit where what the joint committee proposes (after jumping through a shit ton of hoops) is entitled to a simple up down vote after 2 or 30 hours of debate (depending on which House you are in)? In the most simple terms... A bill proposed by the group of 12 is under a completely different set of rules from a bill proposed by any other member of Congress. That is unequal representation in Congress, is it not? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
In the most simple terms, not it is not. This is why: (i) the decision to give the bill that "special treatment" was made by the entire Congress; and (ii) that "special treatment" consists of calling for a straight yes or no vote after 2 or 30 hours of debate, depending on whether you are in the HOuse or the Senate, whereas other bills are subject to being debated, amended, debated, amended, debated, amended forever until such time as they die without ever being voted on or become something they were never intended to be; and (iii) that "special treatment" can be revoked at any time by the entire Congress; and (iv) the bill proposed by the group of 12 can be shot down by Congress by the same size vote as it would take to shoot down any other bill; and (v) the president can veto the bill proposed by the group of 12 in the same way as he could veto any other bill. Sorry, I couldn't get simpler. It is what it is. And what it is ain't unconstitutional. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW Honolulu, How do you expect me to see you when you consistently misrepresent what is said on the other side of the argument? Again I defy you to back up what you said. Also... How exactly is unequal representation in Congress Constitutional? Sorry if this has gotten a little bit harsh, but really! | ||
| Dannyd |
Sifo, You are unreal!!! Seems like you're never wrong!! |
