Super Congress Getting Even More Super Powers In Debt Deal

Has anyone asked the question of how many other congressional committees is the President a member of?
Would not that fact alone make it special?

Originally posted by Thepenitentone
Has anyone asked the question of how many other congressional committees is the President a member of?
Would not that fact alone make it special?

This is something I have been trying to confirm. Alex says that the president is but so far I can't find where he gets that info. He said it was mentioned at a press briefing when the committee was brought up. But every search I make about a 13th member yields the same article. It certainly would not surprise me if he were - how would a tie vote of 6 vs 6 be decided otherwise?

If you can find out more about a 13th member or vote breaker, or presidential involvement with the committee, I would like you to post it here so we can see it, thanks.

Originally posted by MegaMind


This committee will write the bill or have someone else do it - no problem there but ...

Since when does a committee get to decide when their bill comes to the floor for a vote.

Since always. This is what committees do. It's why we hear the phrase "Bill XXXXX died in committee"

Or since when does a committee get to have no amendments made to the bill they bring forward. Also since when does a committee bring a bill forward in the senate that can't be filibustered. This is hardly just a normal committee.

This is what the Rules Committee does. In fact, this is all they do. So to answer your question: Since 1789.

Also they can look at anything they want according to Harry Reid. It doesn't just have to be about these spending cuts. (check the huffpo article for where Reid says this)

They cannot look at any"thing" but any program. This is absolutely necessary in order to actually make the cuts that were part of this debt ceiling bill. Who else would do it? Their actions are limited to proposed bills and still require the endorsement of Congress as a whole.

People are taking this and spinning it wildly to make it seem as if this small group has the ability to usurp the power of the entire Congress and do as they please. This couldn't be further from the truth.

reply to post by Thepenitentone


It sure would. Especially since the President is not a member of Congress. That would be the Executive branch infiltrating the Legislative branch and would be unconstitutional.

Good thing that's not happening. That's just made-up nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence that this is true at all. Not a shred.

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack

Please don't launch attacks on me because I have a different viewpoint.

Please show facts to back up your opinion. Otherwise it confuses people.

I for one would love to find out this is nothing but unfounded gossip.

Just jumping to add... the White House fact sheet indicates that Medicare and Social Security are exempted from the committee's ability to cut, but that does not appear in the legislation, unless I missed it.

Nowhere in the legislation does it say the President has a vote in the committee (again, unless I missed it.)

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
Since always. This is what committees do. It's why we hear the phrase "Bill XXXXX died in committee"

No I don't think you understand. Leaders of the houses decide when a bill is brought to the floor for a vote. Instead this committee will bring a bill forward and it must be voted on within 2 days. They get to set the timing of the vote. Very important.

This is what the Rules Committee does. In fact, this is all they do. So to answer your question: Since 1789.

Yes the rules committee sets rules but this bill changed the rules. For example eliminating a filibuster or amendments to the bill this committee brings forward. This is watering down the power of the congress. This is new.

They cannot look at any"thing" but any program. This is absolutely necessary in order to actually make the cuts that were part of this debt ceiling bill. Who else would do it? Their actions are limited to proposed bills and still require the endorsement of Congress as a whole.

Congress gets to have an up or down vote but not all the power and input they normally have. Taking away the ability to change part of the bill with an amendment - its all or nothing.

People are taking this and spinning it wildly to make it seem as if this small group has the ability to usurp the power of the entire Congress and do as they please. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The bill they bring forward will have special privileges other bills do not have. It will limit somewhat the power the congress has traditionally had. filibuster to name one.

I noticed the Republicans are trying to get the Democrats to make Gabrielle Giffords one of the six. That tells me the whole thing will bea dog and pony show. Gabrielle Giffords would not be able to spend much time on the issue do to medical treatments that are still on going. So I would not look for much to be done. They are already looking for a way to not sit at the table.

reply to post by MegaMind


This is based on memory, but isn't the VICE President the traditional tiebreaker and NOT the President???

List of tie-breaking votes cast by Vice Presidents of the United ...

The Vice President of the United States is the ex-officio President of the United States Senate, as provided in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the United ......
en.wikipedia.org...

It may be unconstitutional because it does not keep the Exec. branch separate from the Legislative. Given the deliberate move away from Kings....

reply to post by crimvelvet


Unfortunately, due to the nature of my opinion, I cannot back it up. I'm saying there isn't something where other people say it is. I can't really show that something isn't there you know?

Check the Mod's post and follow their link. Sets the facts straight.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by MegaMind

 

This is based on memory, but isn't the VICE President the traditional tiebreaker and NOT the President???

List of tie-breaking votes cast by Vice Presidents of the United ...

The Vice President of the United States is the ex-officio President of the United States Senate, as provided in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the United ......
en.wikipedia.org...

It may be unconstitutional because it does not keep the Exec. branch separate from the Legislative. Given the deliberate move away from Kings....

The vote I'm referring to is the vote the committee members will make on the bill they create or have created for them. That will mean 12 votes are cast for or against the bill they consider. If it is 6 vs 6 how will it be decided? If they can't come up with some bill for congress to vote on, default cuts that will be implemented instead.

And yes you are right about the VP casting a tie breaker vote in the senate.

reply to post by MegaMind


Life events are subject to change. Things can't stay the same as they always were.

We see how Congress operates and as the Mod noted, it is a damn shame that politics have gotten in the way of effective leadership but right now, we just have to accept this. The committee will go away quickly. These are temporary measures and let's face it, we need them.

ETA: Don't get me wrong. I love the fact that attention is being brought to they way our system works and it's failings. It's just that... people are sheep. They always take something and spin it way out of proportion. I doubt I need to ask you if you've read the posts in this thread and others. They're just so beyond absurd, I can't even comprehend how their mind is working. Sure, things have changed and the rules have been altered but this is no reason to cry wolf. The world is not ending. The term "Super Congress" is misleading at best. They are not going to take over the government and push for global domination. Not this group anyhow.

This is exactly why people laugh when you mention the NWO, regardless of the facts you present them. The media invented this wild idea and those prone to conspiracy theories are just eating it up. So people will scream and cry foul, trumping this whole thing up with ridiculous notions of absolute power. When the committee is disbanded and nothing happens, our community will be worse for the wear, making it that much harder to appeal to the common Joe and argue the case against globalism. They will remember this Chicken Little incident and simply laugh it off.

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
reply to post by MegaMind

 

Life events are subject to change. Things can't stay the same as they always were.

We see how Congress operates and as the Mod noted, it is a damn shame that politics have gotten in the way of effective leadership but right now, we just have to accept this. The committee will go away quickly. These are temporary measures and let's face it, we need them.

Agree with most of what you said. However, I don't think we need this committee. I think its designed to circumvent the usual procedures in the house and senate. Why? Just as Ron Paul said to impose the political will of the leaders in both houses over the rest of congress. I just hope that if they bring something ridiculous forward congress will stand up and not be pressured.

This is supposed to be temporary. Let's hope its not setting a precedent. I always keep in mind that people are forever seeking to expand power and their hold on the reigns of government. Our very government was designed with that in mind. Distrust of people and government. There is always a wolf in sheep's clothing.

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack

Unfortunately, due to the nature of my opinion, I cannot back it up. I'm saying there isn't something where other people say it is. I can't really show that something isn't there you know?

Check the Mod's post and follow their link. Sets the facts straight.

SIGHHhh That is always lots of fun.

One of the biggest problems is we are not lawyers.

I keep thinking of this statement:
"...lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better...." by a lawyer looking at a bill ...Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress...." LINKY


It does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling, and of course the MSM is only interested in selling papers and spreading propaganda.

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack

This is exactly why people laugh when you mention the NWO, regardless of the facts you present them. The media invented this wild idea and those prone to conspiracy theories are just eating it up. So people will scream and cry foul, trumping this whole thing up with ridiculous notions of absolute power. When the committee is disbanded and nothing happens, our community will be worse for the wear, making it that much harder to appeal to the common Joe and argue the case against globalism. They will remember this Chicken Little incident and simply laugh it off.

edit on 3-8-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: (no reason given)

I don't think it will be so obvious when "it" (NWO) comes. It will be incremental like it already is. One day you will look back and see that "it" happened without any fanfare at all. These are just the mile markers on our way. That's why it is so important people become aware of them now. By the time it is obvious to "common Joe" it will be way too late to do anything about it.

reply to post by MegaMind


Agreed. The people pushing this nefarious agenda are not stupid. Not by a longshot. They use elements of propaganda, psychology, and what they learned from other attempts to refine and hone their skills. I'm constantly warning others that there will be no clear event that defines the state of affairs but a gradual turning of evil cogs that will bring about our slavery over time.

I'm sure I don't need to quote to you the statement by a founding father that our children will wake up one day in shackles in the land their forefathers shed their blood to liberate.

I think our views are pretty congruent. I guess my posts are more a matter of addressing other members in this thread, not so much the OP as I see your intentions now.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Hahaha I don't particularly enjoy exploring the minutiae of detailed writings either. The section concerning our topic here is a faily light read. Just Title IV if memory serves me.

And yeah, let's hope the Judicial Branch doesn't legislate from the bench and engage in activist rulings. I have the view that while all branches are twisted, the Judicial Branch is truly our last hope.

reply to post by MegaMind

The vote I'm referring to is the vote the committee members will make on the bill they create or have created for them. That will mean 12 votes are cast for or against the bill they consider. If it is 6 vs 6 how will it be decided? If they can't come up with some bill for congress to vote on, default cuts that will be implemented instead.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The PRESIDENT is supposed to present a BUDGET not congress. Is he too lazy or too feeble-minded or too BORED to do his job???

Presidential Budget Proposal - The President's Role in the U.S. ...

Following the procedure required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President presents a budget proposal for the coming ...
usgovinfo.about.com...

Maybe that is why it ends in 2012, Congress will no longer have to hold Obama's hand.

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack

I have the view that while all branches are twisted, the Judicial Branch is truly our last hope.

Oh the Judicial Branch got twisted too. Just look up

WICKARD v. FILBURN and President Roosevelt's threats against the uncooperative "nine old men,"

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) (the Judge was a good guy and got poisoned for his trouble)

Then check into the "Fully Informed Jury"

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by MegaMind

 

The vote I'm referring to is the vote the committee members will make on the bill they create or have created for them. That will mean 12 votes are cast for or against the bill they consider. If it is 6 vs 6 how will it be decided? If they can't come up with some bill for congress to vote on, default cuts that will be implemented instead.

Curiouser and curiouser.

The PRESIDENT is supposed to present a BUDGET not congress. Is he too lazy or too feeble-minded or too BORED to do his job???

Presidential Budget Proposal - The President's Role in the U.S. ...

Following the procedure required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President presents a budget proposal for the coming ...
usgovinfo.about.com...

Maybe that is why it ends in 2012, Congress will no longer have to hold Obama's hand.

Did you know a budget wasn't passed by the president and congress for 2 years?

They did one in April, 2009 and April 2011 but none in 2010 (worried about being on record with elections so close)

en.wikipedia.org...