McConnell, Reid: And while we're at it, let's tear up the Constitution

[boxman15]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

Can anyone explain to me how this proposed "Super Congress" is even remotely constitutional?

Essentially, it would comprise of 12 "super" members of Congress, 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, 6 from each chamber, that would have the power to push through legislation without having to go through "regular" Congress. This is how they would pass a compromise on the debt ceiling, for instance.

Sure, it would make passage of a debt deal easier, but have any of them thought of the ramifications of this new legislative body? If some batshit crazy GOPer got in in 2012, all he/she would have to do is get a bill to go through the Super Congress with support of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat. That's it. This just is not right. It goes against all of our democratic principles. This is not anything the supposedly beloved Founding Fathers would support. This is undemocratic. If the wrong people get into power, this could signal the end of American democracy as we know it.

This scares me, honestly, and it shocks me that it apparently has a bunch of support from people on both sides of the aisle. I hope this is a case of HuffPost misleading journalism, but I doubt it. Why is this even on the table?

EDIT: After reading some more from other sources than HP, the legislation would pass the Super Congress, or super committee as lawmakers and everyone not employed by the Huffington Post calls it, and would then have a straight up or down vote in Congress, without any chance at amending anything in the bill.

It's not quite as menacing as HuffPost made it out to be, but I still don't like it and don't like the idea of certain members of Congress being given so much unchecked power. It sets a dangerous precedent and when the wrong people get into power, this could be a bad thing.

[Parker CA]

1. Truly frightening if accurate. Kiss what still exists of democracy goodbye. nt

[elleng]

2. No, can't.

[Recursion]

3. How is a joint select committee unconstitutional?

Seriously.

It's the formation of a joint select committee and a suspension of the regular rules of debate on the outcome of that committee. It's hardly unprecedented. It's the same idea behind BRAC. Intelligence has a joint select committee with suspended debate rules; so I think does merchant marine and fisheries, for reasons that escape me.

There might be some precedence issues of having to refer solely to the House if revenues are affected, but that's not insurmountable.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Parliamentary bodies...

..have ultimate discretion on what rules they make for themselves, and Article One of the Constitution sits squarely in that tradition.

The filibuster rule, for example. Or the budget reconciliation process. Both of them place serious restrictions on the extent to which legislation is debatable, and for how long, or amendable, and for what purposes. The rules of the House give the Rules Committee -- and in practice the speaker -- the ability to determine what even comes to the floor.

On the other hand, if you have 2/3 of the votes in a body, you can proceed under suspension of those same rules.

[boxman15]

6. Thanks. This still frightens me nonetheless.

If this precedent is set, it could be dangerous. All you'd need is support from 7 "super" members of Congress to pass legislation. That's more harmful than the filibuster, in my opinion.

I know President Obama wouldn't pass dangerous legislation through the "Super Congress," but if the wrong person becomes president I'm fearful things might end badly.

[Recursion]

10. This precedent has been set a long time ago

This is an age-old way for Congress to make decisions it doesn't want to make.

[mindwalker_i]

5. Sounds like McConnel really doesn't want to do his job

The first proposal was to give Obama Congress' authority on money to raise the debt, so he didn't have to do it but could bitch about it. Now, McConnell is trying to basically create a shell company or "subsidiary" to do the work that he doesn't want to do and take responsibility for. If Reid is going along with it, shame on him.

It's making someone else do the hit, Charles Manson style.

[Blue State Bandit]

7. I really hope this is a ploy to make a GOP'r do something sooo unconstitutional...

that it can be denounced as treasonous. Because stuff like this, combined with the blatant voter suppression out in Wisconsin just screams to be denounced in such terms.

[Recursion]

9. Seriously, what do you see as unconstitutional here?

I don't get why a joint select committee with suspended debate rules is so horrifying to people.

[Blue State Bandit]

14. This is no "Gang of 6" caucus they are talking about. And though it may seem...

...well intended now, what happens when we reach the next "impasse", and the next? They want to create a stove pipe in congress. The concentration of legislative power; the ability to pass bills thru both branches of congress with only the votes of a small handful of people is about as far from what the founders had in mind when they created our legislative system as it gets.

It's too dangerous a precedence to set. It would become the bastardized child of the filibuster. A reverse filibuster where, insteed of making legislation easy for a minority to block, it would make it impossible for either a minority or majority to block.

This is "Disaster Legislation". We are brought to the brink, and then we are given an impossible choice. Watch our country fall, or abnegate control via decimation of democratic processes. I think that this constitutes economic blackmail in which the nation is the hostage. The republicans are dangling the nation over a cliff, and demanding payment to let it live. But in leiu of payment, they will accept you joining in their heist of everyone else.

Nations have been known to go to war over such things, and charges of treason have been levied for less. So when you ask, what is unconstitutional about this particular proposed digression, or the hundreds of others that lie strewn about like puzzle pieces across the table, I have to ask in turn... "What isn't?"

[Recursion]

15. You realize they've done this before about other issues, right?

This isn't unprecedented.

[Blue State Bandit]

16. What, allow for 12 votes to constitute passage of both houses?

And what's "good for us now" may be a disaster for us later.

[Recursion]

19. If you call suspension of debate "passage of both houses"

First off, this is what reconciliation always is. It's how BRAC works, too. Both BRAC and reconciliation have been denied when referred back to their chambers, so your implication that this is guaranteed to pass seems wrong, though if I had to guess I'd say we'll see Boehner once again unable to control his caucus.

[Lionessa]

8. Also the False representation of even party split, doesn't represent the actual

percentaages in Congress, just like it never did when those f'ing committees Obama kept setting up when he had strong majorities in both houses, and set up evenly "bipartisan" committees to make up legislation and the catfood commission, and others I can't remember.

[Recursion]

11. BTW: that's good for us, right now (nt)

[Lionessa]

12. Not an us or them issue, it's a fair representation issue.

[Igel]

13. Nope.

Everybody gets represented in deciding to appoint the committee, or at least no less represented than usual; everybody's represented as usual when it comes time to vote on the recommendation.

It's what happens in between that is at issue. This effectively cuts out a lot of discussion and presentation of viewpoints. Such acts typically require some sort of supermajority since it has the same result as a cloture vote--which also effectively cuts out a lot of discussion and presentation of viewpoints. People always seem to like such votes when it shuts up people they don't like, and are outraged when it shuts up people they do like. I view them neutrally: It takes a supermajority to silence the minority in any committee, which is reasonable because you don't want voices easily silenced--but neither do you want a superminority to hamstring a committee.

It's the assumption that this can be dictated ex cathedra by the leaders of the House and Senate, that the committee would necessarily continue beyond its appointed tenure, or could take up any matter that's a bit odd.

[Blue State Bandit]

17. Bingo! This is the problem. (attn: Recursion)

It's the assumption that this can be dictated ex cathedra by the leaders of the House and Senate, that the committee would necessarily continue beyond its appointed tenure, or could take up any matter that's a bit odd.

Give them this power, and they won't let it go.

[Recursion]

20. This power is used most years for reconciliation already

It's the only way anything ever gets done, it's just that it's usually done to bypass Senate debate rather than instill part discipline into the House.

[onenote]

18. Since you edited the text, why didn't you edit the title?

You obviously understand now that its not remotely unconstutional (which is not the same as saying that its necessarily a good idea).