| Author | Message | ||
     Honolulu_blue_esq |
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-debt-deal-sup er-committee-unconstitutional-undemocratic-or-much -about-nothing/ I know you guys aren't going to agree with this, but I figured I'd provide the link anyway. Maybe this guy makes the point I've been trying to make in a manner more clear than I've been able to make them. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Being an honest man does not make one right.  | ||
| Sifo |
Such compelling arguments... Because I say so, or now, because a liberal blogger says so. OK, I'm convinced. The Congress could appoint a single Czar to create all legislation and it would be perfectly fine. No problem what so ever. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Being an honest man does not make one right. Stating the obvious does not make one wise.  | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"The Congress could appoint a single Czar to create all legislation and it would be perfectly fine. No problem what so ever." No one has said this but you. My point has been that the bill isn't unconstitutional, not that it is "perfectly fine" or a good idea. In fact, if you scroll back to the beginning of this debate, I think you'll see where I said I think this bill sucks. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Also, the Congress (with the approval of the POTUS) COULD, without violating the United States Constitution, appoint a single Czar to write all legislation, so long as the entire Congress retained the power and authority to (i) remove that Czar and all of his authority; and (ii) approve or reject any legislation that Czar presented to the full Congress by way of a majority vote in both the House and the Senate. Would I like it? No. Would I think it violates principals of Democracy? Yes. Would I try to vote out any Representative or Senator who put such a system in place? Yes. Would it be unconstitutional. Absolutely not. | ||
| Sifo |
At least I am in agreement with some very learned Constitutional Scholars...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_budget_ control_act_of_2011_violates_constitutional_order. html They make the case far better than I can. They also make a case where it fails on another matter that I had not considered. I have to say that I really am surprised to see this discussion unfolding along such partisan lines. Like I said earlier, I don't even know who proposed this turd of legislation. I simply see it as going against the Constitution. This SHOULD be something that would concern people from both sides of the fence, assuming that people on both sides of the fence really want to follow the Constitution. This doesn't seem to speak well for where we stand as a country at the moment. | ||
| Sifo |
In fact, if you scroll back to the beginning of this debate, I think you'll see where I said I think this bill sucks. Funny, but I asked for supporters of this bill to please state what they liked about it. You chimed in with arguments that basically revolved around efficiency. If you would like to point out where you said it sucked though, feel free. | ||
| Sifo |
"The Congress could appoint a single Czar to create all legislation and it would be perfectly fine. No problem what so ever." No one has said this but you. And yes, I'm well aware that came directly from my own thoughts. The point is that things are done one step at a time. Can I point out that Hitler didn't grab all of his power in a single step without being attacked with torches and pitchforks for making a Hitler reference? It's done one step at at time my friend... One step at a time. Isn't that why they call it "Progressive"? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: Really interesting article. I'll have to consider its first (and I think only valid point) about placing the power of borrowing money with the POTUS subject only to Congress saying "no." That is a point I hadn't considered, and we haven't discussed here. If this bill is overturned, I suspect it will be on this point, and the so-called "super committee" or whatever you've been calling it will remain intact. Regarding the second point of the article (the one we've been discussing), Titus and Olson appear to rely on the following case law: "by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief ... that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation's elected officials." The problem with this position is that this bill does nothing to change the fact that no law can take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses. If anyone casts a "yea" vote for a bill they haven't considered, shame on them. They don't deserve the job they've been elected to do. | ||
| Fahren |
A good read, as usual, from Ron Paul on this subject: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content &view=article&id=1903:super-congress-a-gift-to-k-s treet&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69 | ||
| Blake |
Article. I. As I understand it the new law would prohibit the Senate from proposing amendments. If so, it would thus appear to be blatantly unconstitutional. (Message edited by blake on August 08, 2011) | ||
| Kenm123t |
The Yea votes brought us the health care bill. We have Foxes in the hen house time to clear them out and the hair splitters out . | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Article. I. Section 5. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.... | ||
| Blake |
See my edits. The rules cannot abrogate the constitution. | ||
| Blake |
Establishing a new separate branch of the legislature is not a mere "proceeding", it is a redefinition of the legislative branch of our government. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Blake: I couldn't agree more. Establishing a new separate branch of legislature would not be a mere "proceeding." I'm sure glad no one has tried to do that. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"As I understand it the new law would prohibit the Senate from proposing amendments." It does prohibit the Senate from proposing amendments (notice the lower case a) to bills which are proposed by the subcommittee. It does not prohibit the Senate from proposing Amendments (notice the upper case A) to the Constitution, which is what your quoted language contemplates. Check out Article V. Thanks for trying to base your position in the actual Constitution though. That is refreshing. Seriously, i'm not trying to be a dick here. Thanks for that. | ||
| Blake |
What are you talking about? I'm talking about article I which defines the role of congress (the legislative branch of our government), specifically sections 1 and 7. Article I section 7 is mandating the procedures required for creating legislation and clearly speaks of legislation ("bills") and their "amendment", it is not speaking to the amendment of the constitution itself when it states that... All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. (Message edited by blake on August 08, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
>>> Thanks for trying to base your position in the actual Constitution though. It's what I've done from the start; I just let Judge Napolitano speak for me. If you're not trying to be a dick, then you need to show (quote the specific text) how a prohibition against senate amendments does not violate the aforementioned. | ||
| Blake |
Oh, and I didn't merely "try" to base my position on the constitution. I succeeded in doing so. Maybe you could try to do the same? So far, I've not seen it. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Did you read Article V? I think it will make sense if you do. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"Then you need to show (quote the specific text) how a prohibition against senate amendments does not violate the aforementioned." That isn't how constitutional law works. Things are presumed to be constitutional unless they violate the text of the United States Constitution, not the other way around. It would have been virtually impossible for the Founders to enumerate everything that is Constitutional. No once can quote specific text tos how that something is constitutional. Instead, nay sayers are burdened with quoting specific text, in context, to show that something is not constitutional. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Did you read Article V? I think it will make sense if you do. It makes sense, but has nothing to do with the issue. Article V concerns the rules for amending the constitution itself, not passing subordinate legislation, which is Article I governs. (Message edited by blake on August 08, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
To help you focus, the point of discussion here surrounds the rules for proposing and passing legislation by the legislature (congress). This discussion is not about amending the constitution, but rather concerns subordinate legislation created by congress. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Things are presumed to be constitutional unless they violate the text of the United States Constitution, Uh, the bill we are discussing violates the text of the Constitution. That is my point. The Constitution says that the senate must be allowed to amend bills authored by the house. The bill we are discussing prohibits that. So how is the bill constitutional if it violates that constitutional rule? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Bananas. | ||
| Blake |
Troll. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Wow, that was fun. Now I see why you guys say random stuff that has no relevance to anything. I should try that more often. Batman. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
If I'm a Troll, you should ban me. It is a good way to cut down on views that oppose yours from sneaking in to this little domain of yours. |
