Here's a small idea for the Super Committee that's supposed to report on how to achieve a trillion dollar savings in the federal budget by November 23--stop paying pension costs of Defense and Energy Department contractors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/busin … f=business
I wonder what the odds are that the committee will finish up by November 23? There hasn't been much reporting on their progress or lack of progess lately.
I can't imagine there is the slightest chance on the planet.
How are you, Ralph? Thanks so much for this link.
In my opinion, the super-committee represents an admission by Congress that it is unable, as a legislative body, to do its job. I also have some other opinions that are of no interest to anyone but me. Their value is not greater or less then any others being knocked about. Still, they are my opinions, they hatched from what I think I know about current events, and they are subject to change as I gather more knowledge. May I air them here, not to influence others but to massage my own ego?
The United States did not become the leader of the free world because of any one political party. In the past, public officials were able to find compromises so all factions received some measure of what was important to them. Like the Emperor Nero, the government today is fiddling as the nation burns. The national debt is exploding and people, if my reading is typical in any way, are focused on politics, ideology, labels, and potential candidates when I think the country really needs a major attitude adjustment. My reaction is to scribble some examples of changing attitudes that may have the potential to morph into solid solutions.
The population of the US is divided into three groups: the financially strong, the financially weak and needy, and, in the middle, the financially struggling. It does not matter who is in each group nor how many. Each hopes to protect their own interests and none are consciously out to hurt the others. However, all Americans are in this together. These tough economic times demand practical fiscal solutions.
There is an immediate need to increase revenue. Are the weak and needy, or those already struggling with unemployment, young families, and home mortgage payments, in the best position to increase revenue? Of course not! Increased revenues must come from closing tax loopholes and from temporary tax increases. Both measures impact those in the best position to pay them. In addition, elimination of the FICA withholding cap will expand the trust fund today and will extend benefits to the highest earners in today’s work force who are expected to live longer in the future. In reality, as is always the case, the wealthiest among us will be the first to benefit from an expanding economy. When the team is losing badly, the coach has to rely on his most able players and puts his weakest players in the game when the team is way ahead.
There is an immediate need to reduce expenditures. The federal budget needs to be trimmed by trillions. Cuts affecting social programs, business interests, subsidies, and military wish lists should all be on the table. A balanced budget is not a luxury. It is necessary for a healthy, robust economy.
There is a long-term need to stop borrowing to pay for unbalanced budgets year after year. The struggling, younger working class should be asked to add a few years to their careers before collecting social security. Moreover, they should not rely on just SSI benefits in their old age although they should be enough to keep them independent.
Now is the time for practical solutions free of politics, ideology, labels, and potential candidates. After the goal has been realized, there will be many opportunities to revisit today’s debates while on a restored and firm economic footing.
Thank you, Ralph. Sorry to vent all over your thread!
+++ Thanks for your usual thoughtful and lucid comment. I agree with nearly everything you said. I don't think immediate expenditure cuts or tax increases are called for until we see the light at the end of the current recession tunnel. I completely agree that expenditure cuts AND revenue increases are essential and that a firm timetable of action should be laid down ASAP. Several expensive private colleges draw the line at around $65,000 family income for full financial aid packages without expecting anything from parents. They go up to $185,000 for partial aid packages with the expectation of parent contributions. As you observed, increased revenues aren't going to come from the poor or low-middle class incomes. Like Willie Sutton we will have to "go where the money is." Perhaps a $65,000 cutoff for tax increases would make sense.
There won't be any important news on it. That's the entire point of unconstitutionally granting the power to spend $1.2 Trillion to twelve people -- to keep it secret.
In addition to eliminating defense contractor pensions, what about reducing congressional pensions to match social security benifits?
The Supercommittee is unconstitutional, and thus should be abolished immediately.
Deadlocked Super Committee considers "Plan B."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … r-coaster/
I’m sorry. I could not resist the urge to add a bit of my own sarcasm to yours. You did intend to be sarcastic, right?
As you already know, the power to declare laws unconstitutional is limited to the federal judiciary as derived from Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution. This means interpretation of the law in America is not subject to the whims of misinformed, ordinary citizens and the Super Committee can get on with its assigned task until the courts declare unconstitutionality.
“The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” (Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 78 (June 14, 1788))
Thank you, Evan, for your personal judicial review. Did you hear arguments from many different perspectives or did you decide the issue all on your own? Sorry. No more sarcasm, I promise.
The only one-sided understanding of the Constitution is your own!
Actually, My beliefs about the Constitution come from THE CONSTITUTION, not from a quote generated 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution by some bozo who wanted George Washington to be king. The Constitution was ratified (barely, might I add) by 9 of the 13 colonies, all of which worked hard trying to get their own opinions reflected in the document. Thus, by basing my arguments on what the document says (not some lone twit's understanding) my understanding reflects 9/13ths of the sentiments of the time.
Every single one of my arguments can be found directly in the Constitution.
The States can declare a law unconstitutional.
(The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.)
But that's not important: There's a reason why the Constitution was written (The first written Constitution in the history of the world was in May, 1776 for Virginia written primarily by George Mason -- who's monument in D.C. grows dustier and more moss filled by the day), and this reason has been discussed openly for centuries. The reason was pointed to in Animal Farm and in 1984.
It's so that we don't need Death Knights with Gavels of Tyranny chanting Oyez to us.
It's so that we can look it up, read it on our own, and KNOW if something is unconstitutional.
http://www.visitingdc.com/memorial/who- … -mason.htm
Greetings Evan. I often wondered how you liked living in Japan. I will keep looking for a hub about your experiences there.
Meanwhile, here at home, we find ourselves discussing the Constitution of the United States and the judicial powers of the Supreme Court. While I respect my own opinions about the Constitution, it is hardly informative to just proclaim my interpretations are superior to all others without offering at least one recognized legal or scholarly authority that agrees with me. Otherwise, I appear to be a legend in my own mind.
The theory that a state has the right to invalidate any federal law it deems unconstitutional is called "nullification." It is a theory, and not a fact, because no legal authority agrees with it. The theory of nullification has NEVER been legally upheld. Rather, the courts repeatedly have rejected nullification, finding that the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The courts have found that under the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that the Constitution gives the federal courts the power to interpret the Constitution. I don't make these things up as I go along. "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.' . . . The [Articles of] Confederation was a compact between States, and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the National Government. The Constitution was an act of the people of the United States." (1) This principle is woven into the law of the land. The Constitution is a pact between the people and the government, not between the States and the government. The Preamble of the Constitution begins "We the people….establish this Constitution for the United States of America."I know the "shopping list" of Supreme Court powers under Article III and the first two items on that list are: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States." Now, Evan, please read that clause again slowly. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws. The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.
Now you really confuse me, Evan. Neither of these articles supports your claims!
From your first link: "Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. NONE of these efforts was legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions…In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court explicitly rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, again holding that the states may not nullify federal law." [my emphasis] (2)
Quoting from your second link: "Interposition is an asserted right of U.S. States to declare federal actions unconstitutional. The courts have not upheld interposition. Rather, the courts have held that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal judiciary, not with the states. The courts have held that interposition is not a valid constitutional doctrine."[my emphasis](3)Actually, I acknowledge that you have not produced one prevailing legal decision from over two hundred years of case law that agrees with your position.Perhaps this accounts for our different viewpoints. Some folks read the Constitution and draw conclusions based upon their personal interpretations. Others read the Constitution and then read other recognized constitutional authorities as well to test their personal conclusions. Should there be a debate as to which group is most likely to be better informed?
Thanks again, Evan, for your interesting perspectives. I always learn something when responding.
(1) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)
Thanks for your participation in the education of Evan Rogers. But you can lead a horse to water....
"The theory that a state has the right to invalidate any federal law it deems unconstitutional is called "nullification." It is a theory, and not a fact, because no legal authority agrees with it."
The 10th amendment exists, and thus Nullification is a state's power.
"Rather, the courts repeatedly have rejected nullification, finding that the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws."
-- No way! You mean the federal courts would routinely judge court cases in a way that would give themselves MORE power?! I wouldn't believe that no matter HOW hard you tried to convince me!
That's, y'know, kind of the whole point...
This next argument is the Cream of the Crop. This argument you made, and cited precedence, is THE REASON why I'm so adamant about basing my understanding of the Constitution off of reading it, rather than letting Death Knights decide for me.
Your claim: "The Constitution was an act of the people of the United States"
This is clearly nonsense - the document was ratified by only 9 of the 13 states' representatives; and of those states that DID ratify, many of their representatives were thrown out immediately because of their ratification of the document. This obviously faulted argument - though engrained into modern day precedent - is based ENTIRELY on the change created in the Constitution by the Committee of Style and Arrangement (no joke).
If we read the FULL preamble, with an understanding that each state ratified the Constitution, we'll see that:
"We the people of the United States"
the phrase "united states" is actually plural. We, the people, of these united states, is how it is to be translated. How can I tell? Because there was a furious debate over whether it should read "these United States" or "The United States".
What solved the debate? The understanding that "well, duh - of course the states are plural".
In the original text of the Constitution, it began with "We, the States". The Change to "We, the People" was made by the Committee of Style and Arrangement (no joke). What was the reason cited to make the change? Well, it was unknown in advance which states would ratify, and which would not. Thus, THE COMMITTEE OF STYLE AND ARRANGEMENT, decided to play it safe and not insult the States that might not ratify the Constitution.
No joke. The "Committee of Style and Arrangement" is the basis for that argument.
For more information that isn't based off of "Precedence" and based more on "not being a slave to your elders", here is some reading:
James Madison's "The Virginia Resolutions of 1798"
James Madison's "Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800", whose message was "the Federal Government will not police itself".
"The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798"
--- "Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact... [they] delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving... the residuary mass of right to their own self-government..."
Back attcha, Evan. Honestly, a conversation about understanding the Constitution is a bit different than one about judicial review by Federal Courts. It is surprising, however, that one schooled in foreign languages is so reluctant to admit words can sometimes convey multiple meanings. We have all read quotes from your pocket Constitution and heard your personal interpretation of the words. In contrast, I tend to believe the intended meaning of the author might be different then my personal interpretation of his words. You disregard this viewpoint because he is “some bozo who wanted George Washington to be king.” He participated in the convention and signed the Constitution. I am among those who accept his knowledge about the intent of the drafters. In fact, those eighty-five essays written during 1787–88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were an effort to explain and support ratification of the same Constitution about which you are now so passionate. It is I who is sorry to correct you.
The quote by Alexander Hamilton did not come after ratification but during.
You are incorrect when you say the quote was “generated 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution.” Although Delaware ratified first on December 7th, 1887, and New York was the eleventh on July 26, 1788, it was not until September 13 1788 that the Articles Congress, without waiting for North Carolina and Rhode Island, certified the new Constitution had been ratified.
I also disregarded Hamilton's quote because he was trying to re-write the Constitution by himself 2 years after it was passed.
My arguments are all based soundly in the text of the document we are discussing.
My arguments about Nullification and Interposition quote authors after the Constitution. However, these arguments are all soundly based in the 10th amendment.
PS - if you so strongly believe in the Federalist papers, do you also defend the limitations of "The General Welfare" clause?
Most "constitutional scholars" will all too eagerly quote the Federalist to defend their destruction of the document they study, but will casually ignore The Federalist #41, where James Madison makes fun of the reading skills of those who would translate "the general welfare" to mean "anything good for the people".
I must demand that you might be hypocritical in this regard. -- However, as I want to point out and purge, this hypocrisy is engrained in your precious "precedent".
I thank you, Evan, for your posts and for sharing your views with us.
Federalist #41 is totally off topic and reveals you have exhausted your reasons for believing as you do about judicial review..
I submitted Hamilton’s quote as a prevailing and widely accepted authority, which you choose to disregard, and that I can understand. But when you introduced Madison’s Federalist #41, an off topic issue, and then “demand” I might be a hypocrite if I don’t also agree with this other paper written by another person at another time about another subjet, you convinced me there was no possible way to respond to this kind of reasoning. I think this conversation is over.
I leave you with your perceptionns and with the reality that you still have not produced one prevailing legal decision from over two hundred years of case law that agrees with your position. Not one!
Be well, Evan, and enjoy your holiday.
Once again, my arguments come directly from the text of the document.
Your come from how other people with political motivations have translated the document.
You can believe your ears, I'll believe my eyes. Last time I trusted someone else's interpretation of a document that legally bound me, I was stuck with a higher gas bill.
Please re-read Article 3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to declare something unconstitutional.
Here is the power of the Supreme Court. It's a grocery list of specific cases/trials the Court may hear (it was amended by the 11th Amendment, I'll post this as well).
I know it makes no difference to actually post the specific cases of the Court's ruling (because 'everyone knows the SC can make things unconstitutional!') and no one bothers to see what the SC's powers really are. But I feel I must insist that they are nothing more than a court that decides judgement on specific cases.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
And, to go even further, these specific instances are even further restrained through the 11th amendment and another part of S3:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Edit: I forgot to include the most important modification to Article 3:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"please re-read Article 3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to declare something unconstitutional."
Well, that's big news to law professors, constitutional lawyers and so forth. The principal job of the Supreme Court, as I understand it, is to interpret the Constitution in light of the facts and circumstances of cases before it, the words of the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions. Are you familiar with the term stare decisis?
You didn't read it, did you?
Ralph. The reason it's written down is so that we don't have to trust and rely upon what some guy tells us the thing means.
Read it for yourself.
Let's compare your version of constitutionality with mine:
Stare decisis: being a slave to those who lied to you a few years ago.
Reading the document for yourself: Knowing what the thing says.
Yours is the logic that demands we continue thinking the Earth is flat: "Well, everyone KNOWS it's flat, and the lords have decided this countless times before!"
The powers that were relied on stare decisis to imprison Copernicus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_C … ontroversy .... yet, I don't have any written documents demanding that a specific individual was allowed to determine who was a heretic.
Mine is the logic where we look to the document and see that the judges don't have any say whatsoever into the shape of the Earth.
I'd like to make one other point.
This entire idea that the SCOTUS is the sole arbiter of Constitutionality is complete nonsense. Every liberal OR conservative should immediately recognize this as nonsense.
The separation of powers makes it so that the Legislature can refuse to pass laws they deem unconstitutional; the Executive can refuse to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional; the Judicial can refuse to convict people of crimes that they see as unconstitutional; AND the states can refuse to enforce laws that they deem unconstitutional.
No. Once again: the SCOTUS is NOT the sole arbiter of Constitutionality, and you must acknowledge this.
A whole quote from Hamilton!? Oh man! My face must be red!
... whoops, nope! I've actually read the Constitution!
No where in the Constitution does it allow the Courts to interpret laws.
Go back and re-read Article 3. Then re-read the 10th amendment, and realize that "interpreting laws" would be a state power.
If you look at that quote you posted, that was from Hamilton (the same man who wanted George Washington to be a King) TWO WHOLE YEARS AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED.
Sorry, the quote is bogus- Hamilton is NOT allowed to define the Constitution AFTER it was ratified.
However, you bet "Hamilton", and I'll raise you a James Madison and Thomas Jefferson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullificat … itution%29
Both of these are grounded in the 9th and 10th amendments.
This is not the first supercommittee. There was one for nuclear power and one for base closure. Amazing how all of a sudden, things are always unconstitutional.
When was the last time you read the Constitution? I carry a small version of it and the Declaration of Independence with me when I go.
It's online for free. Give it a whirl!
Remember, if the power isn't granted to the Federal Government, it's the State's Power; and if a power is taken away from a state, then it is a power reserved to the people. (This is the 10th amendment).
Now show me again where, at most, 12 states are allowed to allocate the income generated from all 50 without a vote by each state?
NYTimes Editorial 11-16-11
Another Plan for Tax Cuts
Published: November 15, 2011
Facing an effective deadline at the end of this week for the Congressional “supercommittee” to come up with a plan for cutting the deficit, Republicans have offered an approach that would raise revenues by $300 billion and cut spending by $1.2 trillion. That is the first time party leaders have acknowledged that any new money should be raised to cut red ink. But the proposal is highly deceptive — the main goal seems to ensure even deeper tax cuts for the wealthy — and demonstrates why the committee seems headed toward a deadlock.
Deficit Panel Seeks to Defer Details on Raising Taxes (November 14, 2011)
Times Topic: Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Deficit "Super Committee")
The Republicans on the panel have called for ending various tax breaks and loopholes to raise $3.5 trillion over a decade, but more than 90 percent of that would go toward lowering income tax rates, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Cutting those rates would not only make permanent the Bush tax cuts but would actually bring rates below their current levels, particularly at the high end.
The top rate is now 35 percent and is scheduled to go up to 39.6 percent when the Bush cuts expire at the end of next year. The Republican proposal would lower them permanently to 28 percent and would also lower other brackets. Capital gains and estate tax rates would remain at their low and highly inadequate levels. Over the long term, all these cuts would cost many trillions and lead to huge spending reductions. Meanwhile, the middle class and the poor would be hit by lower spending on social-insurance programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.
Democrats almost immediately rejected this proposal, which led several members from both parties to consider a full-blown rewrite of the tax code that would take at least a year. At least $1 trillion in new revenues could be raised this way, Democrats say, and they have proposed a trigger that would automatically raise taxes on the rich if the tax code is not revised.
The supercommittee’s current trigger — an across-the-board cut of $1.2 trillion that would hit particularly hard at defense programs — still has not produced an agreement. Instead, several Republicans have talked about disarming the trigger if the panel deadlocks later this week. We are no fans of the supercommittee process. But bailing out at this point would deal a serious blow to this country’s financial credibility. Republicans on the committee need to get down to the real business of raising revenues, not just cutting spending. That is the only way to tackle the deficit.
Republicans Express Optimism on Deficit Proposal as Democrats Remain Glum
House Republicans, back from a week of recess, met to discuss the Republican offer, which includes $300 billion in new tax revenue over 10 years and a rewriting of the tax code. The package was warmly received by many House Republicans at a meeting of their caucus on Tuesday, according to people who attended.
“All of us have a lot of respect for Pat Toomey,” said Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona, one of the most conservative House members. “He’s a good free-market conservative.”
Democrats said they were dismayed to see Republicans rallying around the proposal without offering further concessions to address Democrats’ concerns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/po … tml?ref=us
Do you think the Committee itself is Un-Constitutional? I have heard similar ideas expressed.
It's clearly not.
At best, those 12 people on the committee represent AT MOST 12 states. And those twelve states are going to tell the other 38 states how to spend their money?
That's unthinkable, and unconstitutional.
In order for legislation to be passed, a certain number of votes are required, and those votes are not being held for such cuts.
"BUT THE CONGRESS CREATED IT" -- the OBVIOUS response to this foolish argument is that "Duh, the creation of it was unconstitutional".
Article 1, Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article 1, Section 2:
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.
Both of these together spell out unconstitutionality.
Hey Evan. Guess what? Again we are discussing a complex subject that defies overly simplistic hyperbole. Constitutionality is not determined by simply identifying specific language for or against an issue. It is derived from precedent and a scholarly examination of the intent of the drafters.
As you aptly point out, Sections 1 and 2 deal with legislative powers but they do not spell unconstitutionality when you also consider Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Nor do they when considering Section 7 establishing the requirements each house 1) vote and 2) approve a bill before sending it to the President and if a bill deals with taxation 3) it must originate in the House. There are no other explicit requirements in the Constitution, Evan, regarding any formalities that must be followed to originate and construct Bills, for selecting committee members, or for the manner to conduct voting. All of these steps are left for each house to determine and the Judicial Branch has already established it will not decide about mundane legislative procedures.
Duh, Evan, creating a Congressional Committee does not violate the Constitution! As for the vote, it is slated to come later!
Setting aside all arguments about whether this is a good or a bad idea, I personally consider the Super Committee to be a public admission by the Congress that they are incapable, as a legislative body, of doing their job. Nevertheless, right now, I am only addressing the subject of constitutionality.
Congress chose to streamline a thorny issue by eliminating amendments and a Senate filibuster. No violation of the constitution here! Congress has formed a special committee, which may have legally included civilians, to draft legislation to be voted on later by both Houses of Congress according to pre-arranged rules. No violation of the constitution here either!
Doubters should look up the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (1) created by Congress in the late 1980s to insulate the elimination of military installations from the political process. Five times prior to 2005, this body submitted a roster of bases to be closed or merged and Congress voted on the entire recommendation without having the opportunity to change the list. Another round is slated to begin in 2015. Sounds a lot like the Debt Reduction Super Committee of 2011 doesn’t it?
Thanks for listening, Evan. There is no need to label every government procedure you dislike as “unconstitutional” when you have sound arguments.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Reali … nd_Closure
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Wa … es-trigger
Let's see if Ron Paul predicts ANOTHER major economic event!
@ quilligrapher, IMO you're right that the judiciary is the one to decide, but they never actively pursue.. It is up to Constitutional Lawyers to bring it to judicial review. Only then can they decide on it. I think Constitutional lawyers have gone to the way-side and most are tied up litigating in state court proceedings. Where are all the Constitutional Lawyers... Where's Judge Napolitano when you need to to bring it up to them and put it under review? I'm no lawyer so take my comment for what it's worth. lol
It seems Judge Napolitano is preoccupied with becoming a TV personality. No doubt, this pays more than practicing law.
Yeah i hear ya, I actually like listening to him but when it gets down to it , his qualifications are the ones needed to bring unconstitutionalities to the panel and put under review , yet he doesn't do it. He's teling the guy on the other side of the screen( who's a welder or other occupation, etc.) how unconstitutional everything is ,as if they need to get up and use their welding qualifications to bring things to review. That's how you know politico's are corrupt, when they are one of the few who have the credentials to do so , but don't. Must be that Murdoch money! (and i say this generally leaning right)although i'm left handed which is stange.. that's another story.
@EGR , it's actually less representation than that becasuse Senators represent state interests and the house members represent constituency interests. So actually its is only at most 6 states enforcing all 50 and the other 6 represent the people within 6 states..
ronardo, The Committee is such a weird way for Congress to do it's job, it's got to be unconstitutional. This Presidency has had many weird first ever events. I wonder what the founding fathers would think of The Committee?
Here's a late report on the SuperCommittee:
As Deadline Nears, Deficit Panel Is Still at Deep Impasse (November 19, 2011)
Lawmakers at Loggerheads on Deficit (November 18, 2011)
Republicans hold that the committee’s plan should consist predominantly of spending cuts, not tax increases, even proposing to lower income tax rates for everyone, including the rich. Democrats argue that this is unfair, fearing tax cuts would require cutting even more from government programs that primarily aid the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/us/po … r=1&hp
Breaking News: Debt Talks Close to Failure
WASHINGTON — Conceding that talks on a grand budget deal are near failure, Congressional leaders on Sunday pointed fingers at each other as they tried to deflect blame for their inability to figure out a way to lower the federal deficit without having to rely on automated cuts. More--
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/us/po … re.html?hp
This is from back when the Gub'ment was running a surplus and paying down the national debt. If a person is able to decipher this jibberish from former Fed chaiman Greenspan, he's explaining how deficit spending is essential to making sure the Banksters own the Gub'ment.
Should the debt be payed off completely, then the Gub'ment would bend to the will of the voters, and just the voters. With no bond holders to bow to, the Gub'ment would spend all its time doing what the voters want...
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs … efault.htm
Ron Paul '12?
Xenonlit, Nuclear power is specific also base closings, this committee is about the national debt and the job that is the the job of congress, big difference.
It seems the unconstitutionality of the super committee was covered in this thread six days ago. The differences you mention are in your perceptions and not in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 7, establishes only three requirements for passing a bill: each house must 1) vote and 2) approve a bill before sending it to the President and if a bill deals with taxation 3) it must originate in the House. There are no other explicit requirements in the Constitution, Junko, regarding any formalities that must be followed to originate and construct Bills, for selecting committee members, or for the manner to conduct voting. All of these steps are left for each house to determine by its own rules and the Judicial Branch has already established it will not decide about mundane legislative procedures.
You and I can debate that the super committee is not the best method Congress could use to deal with this thorny issue but we still have to accept it as within their constitutional prerogative.
Hello Mr. Quilligraper, I have read you and you write matter a factly. I missed the coverage you reference which settled the unconstitutionality of the committee. Please briefly discuss your finding and opinion. I didn't think that the constitution intented or allowed for a committee of 12 men from two political parties to make decision that must be passed even if not agreed on by the other political parties and the congress. Now, I must admitt I know about the three requirements to pass a bill. That knowledge is the basics of my perceptions of the committee's power being unconstitutional. I can't except like you that it is within their constitutional prerogative. I would be interested to know what you know, I learn by listening and reading. Please briefly explain..
Hello again, Junko.
This link will take you to the post up above about the Constitution and the deficit reduction super committee of 2011. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86818#post1865244
Congress has broad leeway to establish the procedures they wish to follow to create, discuss, and frame legislation. In this case, the entire congress agreed by ballot to authorize the leadership in each house to select 12 congressmen to create, discuss, and to formally agree on measures to be taken to achieve a specified budget cutting objective. At the same time, the Congress agreed to vote the entire bill approved by this committee up or down without further debate and modification. The congress has already voted on what deficit reduction measures it will take if the committee is unable to reach agreement on a bill or if the bill coming out of the committee is not approved by the entire congress. This procedure for creating a bill is established by the rules agreed upon by the House and Senate as permitted under Article 1, Sections 5 and 7 of the Constitution. The Congress will 1) vote on the bill drafted by the super committee before 2) sending it to the President. Provisions in the bill effecting revenue will 3) also be approved by the House. Nothing in this process violates the Constitution.
You did an excellent job of explaining, Mr. Quilligrapher. The congress agreed by ballot to authorized the leadership to pick the super committee and to abide by their decision, before they were choosen. That was the missing link. Now thanks to you, I'm not as ignorant about this as a was yesterday. I change my opinion, the committee isn't unconstitutional. Now I understand just how strong the President's veto is since the committee's agreements are binding. Thank you sir ,you're a gentleman and a scholar..
One more reminder, Junko.
The committee's agreement must be approved in its entirety without debate or modification before it can be submitted to the President. If the Committee fails to agree on a bill, or if the committee's bill is not approved by both houses of Congress, then the budget reduction measures previously agreed upon by the Congress will become the law sent to the President for his signature.
Thank you, Junko, for your kind words. I’m happy to help.
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.Today's Editorials"In last...
by Jay S 6 years ago
Are you surprised that the "Super Committee" failed to agree on a solution? Republicans blame democrats and democrats blame republicans. When will Congress take responsibility for the problems in America. The only thing that remains the same here is that the rich keep getting...
by AnnCee 7 years ago
Get real Mr. President. I'll hold my breath!
by Quilligrapher 6 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax...
by JON EWALL 7 years ago
Why was President Barak Obama avoiding the Super Committee negotiations?The President promised transparency in his administration if elected. We the people deserved to see and hear what the Super Committee members were proposing in the last days of the committee's meetings. Meetings behind...
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
According to Lawrence O'Brien tonight, the most powerful man in the GOP, Grover Norquist, suffered a little setback today. Forty "Republican members of the House of Representatives signed a letter stating that the "Super Committee" should consider all options for balancing the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|