JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:43 PM
Original message |
"Super Congress" "Joint Committee" whatever you call it - who will be in it? |
|
That's the question I keep wondering about. Who comprises this group?
It could matter so much! Will we be stuck with the likes of Max Baucus on healthcare reform? Is there any chance of having some real progressives in there?
IOW, can we start the negotiations without giving it all away first?
|
Brickbat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:44 PM
Response to Original message |
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Right! What's the mechanism here? |
Kalidurga
(627 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. The only question should be |
|
is this Constitutional. I don't know much about it but on the face of it, it looks like it is not.
|
David Gill
(183 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
What would be unconstitutional is if this committee bypassed the legislative process. It doesn't. It just makes recommendations which are then voted on by Congress.
|
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. So you claim they could simply stop doning anything but vote |
|
Give all the work to say, one person, offer that to vote without debate or amendment and that would be Constitutional? With built in triggers and deadlines for all? It does in fact bypass many vital aspects of the legislative process, which is more than just the vote, which is part of a larger process intentionally avoided by this action. This decision was made specifically to get around the legislative process, save for a hands tied, one off up or down vote. Such a vote is not the legislative process, not in definition, not in intent, and not in reality.
|
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
David Gill
(183 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
In fact, that exact scenario been happening more and more in recent decades. Congress finds itself not politically willing to do what needs to be done so they give responsibility to the President or to an executive agency (again, the president) to sort out the details. This is exactly what the Democrats did with the Wall Street Reform Act- they left a lot of the details on what to regulate and how to enforce regulations to various committees and agencies (the Consumer Protection Agency, the Financial Stability Oversight Council).
What Congress CANNOT do is say whatever this committee decides automatically becomes law. But so long as it's voted on by the House and Senate as proscribed by the Constitution it is legal.
|
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. No amendment and no filibuster? Is that constitutional? I'm not so sure... |
Recursion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
15. Yes. Absolutely. Furthermore, it happens all the time |
|
I'm not sure why everybody's acting like this is something new.
|
Imajika
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
21. The House didn't allow amendments to todays vote either... |
|
Happens all the time.
They pass a rule that says no amendments are allowed. Congress votes on the bill. Perfectly constitutional.
|
Recursion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
14. Yes, completely. It happens in most budget negotiations (nt) |
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:47 PM
Response to Original message |
3. It will be Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus and Joe Manchin for the Democrats |
|
Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann and Steve King for the Republics.
|
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
20. You're giving me nightmares already, Jeff |
Dappleganger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Who won't be in it are real liberals fighting for the American people. |
grahamhgreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message |
7. There will not be ONE PERSON who will be dependent on Social Security for retirement, I know that. |
|
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 01:51 PM by grahamhgreen
Or Medicare.
|
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:04 PM
Response to Original message |
9. 12 Partisans, not patriots. |
|
One dozen traitors to the public.
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message |
12. no progressives, but plenty of teabaggers |
jtown1123
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message |
13. My guess is the fiscal commission/Gang of 6 people which will be disaster. |
texanwitch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:07 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I can quess who will not be in it. |
|
No room for real progressives.
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:10 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Someone you did not vote for, and a whole bunch of people you would not vote for. |
Golden Raisin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. Exactly. And chosen by people |
gkhouston
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-01-11 09:11 PM
Response to Original message |
22. People who care about brinkmanship, not statesmanship. |
|
I'm trying to remember the last time a "gang of" didn't do something I considered ethically if not legally criminal.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message |