What's your take on this "Super Congress" business?

[71buickfreak]

You guys have your panties up in a wad.

As I understand it, the super committee will decide what gets proposed. Then it has to go to the full body of the House and Senate for a straight up or down vote. No filibuster, amendments etc., yes that's correct. But whatever it is still has to be voted on by the full body of each branch. I don't see any gun control measures getting much traction.

I hope I'm correct on this, otherwise my panties are going to be coming out my ears....

What you don't dont realize is that the floor is where the stuff gets discussed, amended and decided on. This SuperCongress is manned by 12 lawmakers, with the president sitting in as the 13th member, the tie-breaker. Not the VP, the POTUS. As we have all seen, what the heads of the parties want, the rest of the rank file almost ALWAYS go along with. This "committee" puts 13 people in charge of the entire thing. If you only have a yay or nay option, there is no ability to question a bill. And guess what? We don't have access to those committee meetings, which means we very well may not get to hear about the new law until it has already passed. No matter how you slice it, it is not a good thing. You have too few people in charge of far too much. And it is all legal, because the constitution states that each house may set their own rules as to how bills get to the voting floor.

So lets say 6 dems want to get rid of all private gun ownership. The 6 repubs say no. The tie is the POTUS (that is the official design, according to my sources, even the huff post states this),, who asked for the bill in the first place. guess what, it goes to the floor and gets voted on. I would much rather have the opportunity to change the bill or at least discuss it. We are losing our rights as citizens. If you don't see that, then you are blind.

 

[Dale00]

In my opinion, LaRouche is not a reputable source of information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm

When you cite him or Alex Jones or InfoWars or PrisonPlanet, you badly damage the strength of your argument.

I do fear the growth of government and concurrent dependency it creates in people. Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom not entitlements doled out by a nanny state. We need to begin shrinking the government before we sink under its weight.

 

[Mgarza_a]

So lets say 6 dems want to get rid of all private gun ownership. The 6 repubs say no. The tie is the POTUS (that is the official design, according to my sources, even the huff post states this),, who asked for the bill in the first place.

Partially right.... An amendment to the consititution must still pass ratification from three-fourths of the states legislatures. The President has absolutely no say whatsoever in the amendment proposal or ratification. A so called "Super Congress" cannot simply pass amendments to the constitution that is not the way it was designed.

 

[tRidiot]

Partially right.... An amendment to the consititution must still pass ratification from three-fourths of the states legislatures. The President has absolutely no say whatsoever in the amendment proposal or ratification. A so called "Super Congress" cannot simply pass amendments to the constitution that is not the way it was designed.

Perhaps you haven't noticed over the last few decades how a few simple laws passed by simple majority votes have managed to be implemented in fact to supersede the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mgarza_a]

Perhaps you haven't noticed over the last few decades how a few simple laws passed by simple majority votes have managed to be implemented in fact to supersede the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

Which laws are those? Maybe they are in a grey area, but outright amendments have to be ratified by the states....

Laws may be passed all day long, but they do not supercede the constitution this is where the supreme court comes into play.

 

[tRidiot]

Which laws are those? Maybe they are in a grey area, but outright amendments have to be ratified by the states....

Laws may be passed all day long, but they do not supercede the constitution this is where the supreme court comes into play.

I'm talking about infringement. In case you did miss it, our 2nd Amendment has been infringed for years. Requiring registration (in places), background checks, having to register and be approved to carry, whether open or concealed, waiting periods, etc. If you don't think those laws are superceding the express intention of the 2nd Amendment, I'd have to just shake my head and walk away.

And I'm talking about in FACT and in DEED, not on paper. Laws are laws... and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

 

[Shadowrider]

What you don't dont realize is that the floor is where the stuff gets discussed, amended and decided on. This SuperCongress is manned by 12 lawmakers, with the president sitting in as the 13th member, the tie-breaker. Not the VP, the POTUS. As we have all seen, what the heads of the parties want, the rest of the rank file almost ALWAYS go along with. This "committee" puts 13 people in charge of the entire thing. If you only have a yay or nay option, there is no ability to question a bill. And guess what? We don't have access to those committee meetings, which means we very well may not get to hear about the new law until it has already passed. No matter how you slice it, it is not a good thing. You have too few people in charge of far too much. And it is all legal, because the constitution states that each house may set their own rules as to how bills get to the voting floor.

So lets say 6 dems want to get rid of all private gun ownership. The 6 repubs say no. The tie is the POTUS (that is the official design, according to my sources, even the huff post states this),, who asked for the bill in the first place. guess what, it goes to the floor and gets voted on. I would much rather have the opportunity to change the bill or at least discuss it. We are losing our rights as citizens. If you don't see that, then you are blind.

I don't like it either. But it's not totally bad, mostly but not totally.

Example: It hamstrings Harry Reid and any future Nancy Pelosi we have from jacking with the voting procedure. So all the the members are on official record for their vote.
The house passed the repeal of Obamacare, the Ryan budget and the Cut, Cap and Balance bill. Harry Reid killed them outright. He can't do that with the bills coming out of this committee.

 

[Mgarza_a]

I'm talking about infringement. In case you did miss it, our 2nd Amendment has been infringed for years. Requiring registration (in places), background checks, having to register and be approved to carry, whether open or concealed, waiting periods, etc. If you don't think those laws are superceding the express intention of the 2nd Amendment, I'd have to just shake my head and walk away.

And I'm talking about in FACT and in DEED, not on paper. Laws are laws... and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

I do not disagree with your opinion on infringement, however all these infringements you list are state imposed NOT FEDERAL. The original argument made was that the "super congress" could simply repeal an amendment when in fact only the states can. Checks and balances my friend.

 

[71buickfreak]

If they got the votes, they could amend the constituion in such a manner. Is it likely? no, but that doesn't mean they won't try. I chose my words poorly, I should have said if they decide to pass a gun law that does not outright make gun ownership illegal, they can and they will try. I think its right around the corner, as in the next few months.

 

[tRidiot]

I do not disagree with your opinion on infringement, however all these infringements you list are state imposed NOT FEDERAL. The original argument made was that the "super congress" could simply repeal an amendment when in fact only the states can. Checks and balances my friend.

I don't recall anyone saying they could repeal an amendment this way. What I'm talking about is them ramrodding a law through that effectively limits the protection and/or execution of the Amendment itself. In effect, the law "supercedes" the Amendment. And there are Federal laws in addition to State laws that have done this in that past, i.e., the "assault weapons ban" and the high capacity magazine limitation.