Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll have to read up on this a bit more. I do not believe the POTUS has the Constitutional right to the purse strings. Nothing that is unConstitutional can pass through this committee unless the people keep bending over and taking it like sheeple.
Congress cannot, under the the US Constitution, vote away its Constitutional powers.
If what the OP claims is true then there is nothing to stop the people from recalling every Congress member who voted in the affirmative as it would be a violation of record to their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Congress just did. All that is left is Obama's signature.
And it has done so before. It did so when it passed the Federal Reserve Act, in 1913, and handed private bankers control of our monetary system.
Unless you are aware of some power I'm overlooking ... the "people" seem to have little say in the matter of constitutionality, and the SC seems uninterested in trivial matters of the constitution. When they aren't silent, their decisions seem ..... how shall I say it ..... anti-intuitive?
They are, after all, sticking their filthy paws down our pants at Airport Security, are they not? I'm almost certain, Thomas Jefferson would object to such a practice as being "constitutional" ... along with gun registration, no carry laws, etc. .... and a laundry list of other offensive power grabs.
Do you not think our elected representatives should be the ones to decide issues pertaining to these matters? Why should a special "Super Committee" be making such decisions? That is not how our government is supposed to be run. That is not how it was set up in the Constitution. Where is our voice?
They technically can, but how often do they do so? Generally they extend things (like the "Patriot" Act for example). They are under pressures that we cannot begin to comprehend. These pressures can be threats and/or rewards.
Sounds like the issue is the quality of our representatives, not the super committee.
Is Super Congress Constitutional? (http://breakthematrix.com/entertainment/super-congress-constitutional/ - broken link)
“The deal would take power from congress and give it to this group. It would fundamentally change the way in which our government works.†– Judge Napalitano"
......................Dumber humans have never breathed oxygen on this planet, and the support of this psychopath confirms everything the New World Order thinks of the general population. They think you are useless eaters, and too stupid to be allowed to continue consuming valuable resources.
You all make it very hard to debate them on that point, as you all wallow in the false left-right nonsense created to distract the simple minded from the overt and obvious destruction of our country.
I was going to start a separate thread on this but now that you bring it up, the "Dumbing Down" of America is BY DESIGN of the GLOBALISTS according to Charlotte Iserbyt who was President Reagan's advisor on Education.
The biggest handicap they gave Americans which may have destroyed their ability to think was to discontinue teaching PHONICS in school. After they stopped teaching phonics, which is where you are taught about consonants and vowel sounds and how they sound in sylables so you can sound out words, they changed over to the WHOLE WORD or WHOLE LANGUAGE method where you were basically expected to learn to read by osmosis or otherwise guess what a word was and once you learned memorize it.
The end result is that kids who were taught the whole word method have an extremely limited vocabulary of only 1600 words by the time they graduate from high school. The kids who were lucky enough to have learned phonics graduate with a 26,000 word vocabulary and the tools to figure out new words and are more likely to read and think on their own.
Naturally if you only know 1600 words, reading is going to be a pretty daunting frustrating experience. So, you probably won't even attempt it. You'll get all your "news" from the propaganda fed to you over the lamestream media TV stations. Learning about politics and candidates is going to be pretty daunting -- which is just what the evil Globalists had in mind to more easily control the masses. You'll believe everything the Globalists owned media wants you to believe. The whole thing is very evil and it is another reason why public school education ought to be destroyed - at least from the standpoint of getting the Federal Government involved.
Those of us who learned phonics can think for ourselves. Hopefully there are enough of us to take our country back.
Please explain how you see this. As I understand it, Congress will have to take the committee's recommendation by voting 'yes' or turn it down by voting 'no'. If it's a 'no' then things will automatically kick in. This does not seem like how it's been done- where there is broad input, negotiation, filibuster, whatever- no matter how protracted, ridiculous, and messy - or not.
I wonder if this "committee" idea is a way to reign in the Tea Party "indirectly" and to keep out any new third/fourth or whatever number of parties. It appears it must be made up of 6 Reps and 6 Dems. I know the TP is part of the Rep party, but they will be kept in "better check" with zero to one (at the most) on the committee. An Independent or third party won't stand a chance.The Tea Party will remain under the watchful eye of the established Republican party and will be less likely to set itself up as an independent third party and will have less power. Just wondering.
Please explain how you see this. As I understand it, Congress will have to take the committee's recommendation by voting 'yes' or turn it down by voting 'no'. If it's a 'no' then things will automatically kick in. This does not seem like how it's been done- where there is broad input, negotiation, filibuster, whatever- no matter how protracted, ridiculous, and messy - or not.
I wonder if this "committee" idea is a way to reign in the Tea Party "indirectly" and to keep out any new third/fourth or whatever number of parties. It appears it must be made up of 6 Reps and 6 Dems. I know the TP is part of the Rep party, but they will be kept in "better check" with zero to one (at the most) on the committee. An Independent or third party won't stand a chance.The Tea Party will remain under the watchful eye of the established Republican party and will be less likely to set itself up as an independent third party and will have less power. Just wondering.
You forget that at any time the congress can pass legislation disbanding the super committee and the automatic spending cuts should congress vote no.
A minority party in our system of government is never going to have power unless there happens to be a swing vote.
Definitely not constitutional. What this does is create an oligarchy made up of a fraction of our democratically-elected congress. In all likelihood, this gang of twelve will consist of the most politically powerful and long-standing members of congress. Left out will be newer members and those with minority opinions. Essentially, we will have an American Politburo.
Congress just did. All that is left is Obama's signature.
And it has done so before. It did so when it passed the Federal Reserve Act, in 1913, and handed private bankers control of our monetary system.
Unless you are aware of some power I'm overlooking ... the "people" seem to have little say in the matter of constitutionality, and the SC seems uninterested in trivial matters of the constitution. When they aren't silent, their decisions seem ..... how shall I say it ..... anti-intuitive?
They are, after all, sticking their filthy paws down our pants at Airport Security, are they not? I'm almost certain, Thomas Jefferson would object to such a practice as being "constitutional" ... along with gun registration, no carry laws, etc. .... and a laundry list of other offensive power grabs.
I do believe that there are members of Congress who do have standing (disenfranchised of their Constitutional authority) who could challenge at the level of SCOTUS. The Pauls, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio come to mind first and foremost.
Please explain how you see this. As I understand it, Congress will have to take the committee's recommendation by voting 'yes' or turn it down by voting 'no'. If it's a 'no' then things will automatically kick in. This does not seem like how it's been done- where there is broad input, negotiation, filibuster, whatever- no matter how protracted, ridiculous, and messy - or not.
I wonder if this "committee" idea is a way to reign in the Tea Party "indirectly" and to keep out any new third/fourth or whatever number of parties. It appears it must be made up of 6 Reps and 6 Dems. I know the TP is part of the Rep party, but they will be kept in "better check" with zero to one (at the most) on the committee. An Independent or third party won't stand a chance.The Tea Party will remain under the watchful eye of the established Republican party and will be less likely to set itself up as an independent third party and will have less power. Just wondering.
Here is what Bloomberg says about the "super committee". It sounds like it is just for debt/spending issues but still.....
I wonder if they got to READ the bill before they voted on it and whether they knew about the Super Committee being part of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
