• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Super Congress" Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

Jerry said:
Well, Obama did say in his campaign that he wanted to fundamentally change America.
Click to expand...
You can't blame Obama alone for this. This just shows how messed up both parties are.
 
"Reid just left Capitol. Asked if deal could be reached before Asian markets open Reid says "talk to the Republicans. We did our best."" <--- tweet posted by Jill Jackson, CBS News.
 
This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
Click to expand...
'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

The bold part should make this a dead idea. But sadly, I have a feeling lot sof people would embrace this because they just don't get the danger involved.
 
This cannot be allowed to happen. I don't see any way possible that it is either legal or constitutional.
 
BDBoop said:
"Reid just left Capitol. Asked if deal could be reached before Asian markets open Reid says "talk to the Republicans. We did our best."" <--- tweet posted by Jill Jackson, CBS News.
Click to expand...

Just like he did passing a budget.
 
I guess I'll be the contrarian yet again: I kinda like the idea, at least in principle. Our Congress has become extremely dysfunctional so that even basic necessities like raising the debt ceiling become epic power struggles with the real possibility that Congress could fail to raise it. "Fast tracking" is a good way to help reform that process. Presumably the recommendations of the Super Congress would be at least somewhat representative of Congress as a whole, since they would be well aware that they had to get the support of their colleagues for any changes they were making.

As for the constitutionality/legality...there is no reason this would be unconstitutional. All laws would still have to be voted on by the entire House and the entire Senate...they just wouldn't get a chance to add amendments and continue haggling long after the bill had been written by the "Super Congress." Instead, it would be subject to an up or down vote. Allowing amendments to bills are not a constitutionally-mandated feature of our Congress, nor are they even federal laws. They're just the parliamentary rules by which our Congress has agreed to operate, and can be changed at any time.

As for whether or not I'd ultimately support it, I guess it boils down to the specifics of the proposal, including how its members are chosen. Does the leadership just pick whoever they want, is it the leadership itself, is it based on seniority, is it random, etc.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I guess I'll be the contrarian yet again: I kinda like the idea, at least in principle. Our Congress has become extremely dysfunctional so that even basic necessities like raising the debt ceiling become epic power struggles with the real possibility that Congress could fail to raise it. "Fast tracking" is a good way to help reform that process. Presumably the recommendations of the Super Congress would be at least somewhat representative of Congress as a whole, since they would be well aware that they had to get the support of their colleagues for any changes they were making.

As for the constitutionality/legality...there is no reason this would be unconstitutional. All laws would still have to be voted on by the entire House and the entire Senate...they just wouldn't get a chance to add amendments and continue haggling long after the bill had been written by the "Super Congress." Instead, it would be subject to an up or down vote. Allowing amendments to bills are not a constitutionally-mandated feature of our Congress, nor are they even federal laws. They're just the parliamentary rules by which our Congress has agreed to operate, and can be changed at any time.

As for whether or not I'd ultimately support it, I guess it boils down to the specifics of the proposal, including how its members are chosen. Does the leadership just pick whoever they want, is it the leadership itself, is it based on seniority, is it random, etc.
Click to expand...

Which would make adding a second legislative branch an even bigger waste of time.
 
apdst said:
Which would make adding a second legislative branch an even bigger waste of time.
Click to expand...

I dunno, it's probably worth a try. I suspect that the result would be some agreements that had the broad contours of what Congress could support...but without the grandstanding and "poison pill" amendments that bills from the at-large Congress would be subject to. And a smaller group would hopefully be more congenial and more intelligent than Congress as a whole. The idea behind a "Gang of Six" type of arrangement makes a lot of sense...the problem is that only the Senate was represented and their proposal was DOA in the House. Having a "Super Congress" would solve that problem.
 
Kandahar said:
I dunno, it's probably worth a try. I suspect that the result would be some agreements that had the broad contours of what Congress could support...but without the grandstanding and "poison pill" amendments that bills from the at-large Congress would be subject to. And a smaller group would hopefully be more congenial and more intelligent than Congress as a whole. The idea behind a "Gang of Six" type of arrangement makes a lot of sense...the problem is that only the Senate was represented and their proposal was DOA in the House. Having a "Super Congress" would solve that problem.
Click to expand...

The members of the 2nd legislature would be elected officials and negotiating the same political minefield that the current Congress faces. It's an absolute waste, not to mention that it would be un-constitutional, since the Constitution only allows for a house of a representatives and a senate and it would go against the whole representation idea; taxation without representation. The notion is plum crazy.

Mitch Daniels has gone ****ing nuts if he supports this idea.
 
This doesn't sound like a separate legislative body or a "super" Congress. It sounds like a legislative committee that is getting an unfortunate nickname.

Nothing that comes out of this legislative committee goes directly to the President's desk for signature -- it goes to Congress for approval. The structure of this legislative committee is certainly unique, and the general membership won't be able to amend the bills that come out of this legislative committee, but it's still a legislative committee.

Considering how hysterical Washington politics have become, and how common its become to play Chicken with the debt limit, something has to change. I don't know if this is the answer, but it's worth a shot.


ETA: Additionally, no way that establishing a committee like this is unConstitutional. Maybe unwise, but only time and experience can tell us that.
 
Super Congress? what the hell...this is why I don't read Huffpo. Make **** sound like it's bigger than it really is.

This sounds like a bipartisan legislative commission in the vein of the "Simpson-Bowles" commission, except that it will be created by Congress rather than the President. To suggest that this is somehow some super, new, powerful legislative body is simply absurd.
 
apdst said:
The members of the 2nd legislature would be elected officials and negotiating the same political minefield that the current Congress faces. It's an absolute waste, not to mention that it would be un-constitutional, since the Constitution only allows for a house of a representatives and a senate and it would go against the whole representation idea; taxation without representation. The notion is plum crazy.
Click to expand...

You don't have a very good grasp of the Constitution if you think this is unconstitutional. Any recommendation that these 12 congresspeople made would STILL have to be voted on by the House and Senate, just as they are now. The only difference is that they'd be fast-tracked and other members of Congress couldn't offer amendments; they'd have to have a clean up-or-down vote. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing congresspeople the right to amend the bills of their colleagues; that practice is just one of the current rules of parliamentary procedure which can be changed at any time.
 
I'm starting to think McConnell needs to go. Someone talk me out of it please.
 
Kandahar said:
You don't have a very good grasp of the Constitution if you think this is unconstitutional. Any recommendation that these 12 congresspeople made would STILL have to be voted on by the House and Senate, just as they are now. The only difference is that they'd be fast-tracked and other members of Congress couldn't offer amendments; they'd have to have a clean up-or-down vote. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing congresspeople the right to amend the bills of their colleagues; that practice is just one of the current rules of parliamentary procedure which can be changed at any time.
Click to expand...

And for this reason, you love it.
 
Jerry said:
Well, Obama did say in his campaign that he wanted to fundamentally change America.
Click to expand...

U.S. Socialist. said:
You can't blame Obama alone for this. This just shows how messed up both parties are.
Click to expand...
I've said it since the McConnell plan was first mentioned, it's an abdication of Congress' lawmaking, taxation and appropriations responsibilities, moreso if this so-call "super Congress" is formed.

Congress already has two separate financial committees that are suppose to review the balance sheets from Treasury and determine if the appropriations authorized by Congress are affordable. Then you have the CBO whose suppose to "score" the bills Congress appropriates. Point is very simple: Congress already has the tools to lower the debt, reduce the deficit and balance the budget is they'd just put partisan politics aside and show some courage to act. So far, only one side has shown the political will to move forward. Now, I can understand why entitlements and tax reform aren't on the table. It's too much to deal with in such a short period of time. But Congress can cut spending and raise revenue through closing some tax loopholes both parties have agreed on and get this debt limit issue behind them. Unfortunately, the GOP refuses to accept any proposal that includes increased revenue without including entitlement reform into the mix. I agree Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security need to be revamped for long-term sustainability, but now is not the time to insist on changing these systems. And by insisting that such reforms must take place during these debt limit negotiations, the GOP effectively are holding the country's financial security hostage.

To put things in perspective, it took nearly 10-years for some of the most powerful financial institutions and Congress to put this country on its current financial footing. I don't think a 10-year deficit reduction plan that includes both spending cuts and tax increases of some kind but particularly on those who got us in this mess is asking too much.
 
Kandahar said:
You don't have a very good grasp of the Constitution if you think this is unconstitutional. Any recommendation that these 12 congresspeople made would STILL have to be voted on by the House and Senate, just as they are now. The only difference is that they'd be fast-tracked and other members of Congress couldn't offer amendments; they'd have to have a clean up-or-down vote. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing congresspeople the right to amend the bills of their colleagues; that practice is just one of the current rules of parliamentary procedure which can be changed at any time.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not what you said before. However, it's still nothing but a waste of time.
 
apdst said:
Well, that's not what you said before.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Any proposal still has to go through the regular bill process as outlined in the Constitution, this just streamlines the process. I'm not sure where you thought I said anything else. :confused:

apdst said:
However, it's still nothing but a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Depends how it's implemented. If it's just a handful of random congresspeople who don't feel any particular sense of duty or desire to compromise, it's a waste of time. If it's something like the "Gang of Six" (but including members of the House) then it could be very useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom