DEBT DEAL Is Unconstitutional

[Segami]

:smoke: :smoke:


" There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate. Theoretically, each member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. The Constitution established by the founders envisioned the House as being representative of the People, and the Senate as representative of the States. However, the Constitution-in-Practice was dramatically altered by the Debt Deal. The Dealsters, Obama, Boner, Mac et alia, have created a new entity, a “SuperCommittee” comprised of six members of the House and six of the Senate. They are now authorized to decide what gets funded in the United States Government. No one else can amend or revise their decision. For all practical matters, the “SuperCommittee” is a new and supreme legislative body.



Constitutionally under Article I, every member of the House is equal to every other, and every Senator is equal to every other Senator. Inasmuch as you are represented by one house member, and two Senators, you are equal to every other voter. However, if you live in one of the States represented by one of the six Senators on the “SuperCommittee” or in one of the districts represented by one of the six House members on the “SuperCommittee” then you have clout. If you don’t, you won’t. If you are not represented by a SuperLegislator, you don’t count.



The Constitution grants legislative powers to two houses of Congress, and all of the members thereof, and does not contemplate Higher Authorities within the Congress with superior law-making powers. The Debt Deal is wholly outside the constitutional framework and is clearly a violation of the Constitution as drafted and ratified. The U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently held that representation is based on a one person, one vote basis; everyone has equal votes and equal representation. It has further held that while some powers may be delegated essential power of law-making cannot be so delegated. It is remarkable that the Tea Caucus, a primary constituency served by the Deal, who are known for their allegiance to a strict construction of the Constitution, were so willing to abandon a key principle of the Constitution as found in real, in contrast to virtual, representation.



The Dealsters would claim that the Super-Twelve, since they represent the 535 members of Congress, still represent the voters. Thus, the Dealsters are in sympathy with the Tories and the King’s men in their debate with the American patriots during the war for American independence. The King’s position was simple, Americans could be taxed because others in England could be relied upon to represent them virtually without the burden of elections. If Senator Tom Coburn were appointed to the SuperCommittee then Oklahoma voters would enjoy REAL representation but if neither Klobuchar or Franken were selected then Minnesota voters would have only virtual, or fantasy, representation. That’s not what the patriots fought for, that’s not what the Founders wrote, that’s not what we have enjoyed for 220 years but it is the new America under a naked Emperor.


http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/debt-deal-violates-article-i-of-the-constitution/

[SpartanDem]

1. No it is not

Congress has created similar temporary committees like this one. If this this the logic then all committees are unconstitutional since not every state is represented.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

4. +1

[Recursion]

2. Where was all this outrage when a super-congress passed health care reform? Or base closure?

Or, I don't know, the reconciliation package of every single budget since the 1970s?

[Le Taz Hot]

3. So is gerrymandering

but they do it anyway. :shrug:

[green prol]

5. Agreed. The raw deal legitimizes taxation without representation.

That was once enough to spark a revolution.

[SusanaMontana41]

6. Illegal? Maybe. Undemocratic, definitely.

Welcome to DU, green prol!

:hi:

[green prol]

9. Thanks!

:hug:

[emulatorloo]

7. It is a joint congressional committee. It isn't the first one, it won't be the last one.

[green prol]

11. A lot of corporate money has gone into making bad laws so that

democracy is further restricted.
Do you support the Super Congress idea or are you just resigned to the fact that We the People don't matter?

[MilesColtrane]

8. The entire Congress still has to vote on their recommendations to put them in effect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I do not like it, but it is it not

for the most recent example of this see BRAC.

They are used, rare, but they are used.

Congress can establish it's own rules.

[FreeJoe]

12. No

"For all practical matters, the “SuperCommittee” is a new and supreme legislative body."

It is not. Anything it proposes has to be voted on by the entire legislature.

"However, if you live in one of the States represented by one of the six Senators on the “SuperCommittee” or in one of the districts represented by one of the six House members on the “SuperCommittee” then you have clout. If you don’t, you won’t. If you are not represented by a SuperLegislator, you don’t count."

It is true that members on the "SuperCommittee" will have more influence. The same is true of the committee chairs, leaders, whips, and senior representatives.

"does not contemplate Higher Authorities within the Congress with superior law-making powers. The Debt Deal is wholly outside the constitutional framework and is clearly a violation of the Constitution as drafted and ratified. "

The constitution largely leaves it up to congress to decide how to run itself. The constitution doesn't say anything about committees, but that is where most congressional work is done today.

Having a group that can propose "fast track" legislation is nothing new. The Base Closure Commission did this. Treaties are often given "fast track" for practical reasons. If the decisions of the "SuperCommittee" were binding without having to go through the rest of congress, you'd have a good argument. As it is, you don't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Many others have pointed out that committees are hardly unprecedented

but that being said: the committee is the alternative to across the board cuts. The SC is horse-trading.

If we don't want across-the-board cuts then the SC has to be allowed to continue.

The new national dialogue about government spending is no longer about how much to spend where but how much to cut and where. The meta-narrative has shifted. The cuts are coming. In some instances there is room, perhaps even lots of room, to trim and not just defense. If the committee can find that room then let them do what they do because every dollar that carelessly gets spent on fraud, waste or abuse is a dollar not helping those who really need it.

[Hosnon]

14. No, no, a billion times no. Both chambers must vote and pass anything introduced

by the "Super Congress".

[fivepennies]

15. The ulitimate unconstitutional debt deal

was passed on December 23, 1913.

http://savannahnow.com/share/blog-post/swamptown/2011-08-01/swampyvilles-intended-consequences-federal-reserve-act

In early November 1910, Aldrich met (At Jekyll Island Georgia) with
five well known members of the New York banking community to devise
a central banking bill(scam). Paul Warburg, an attendee of the meeting and
long time advocate of central banking in the U.S., later wrote
that Aldrich was "bewildered" at all that he had absorbed abroad
and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly
technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his
Senatorial duties. After ten days of deliberation, the bill,
which would later be referred to as the "Aldrich Plan",
was agreed upon. It had several key components including: a
central bank with a Washington-based headquarters and fifteen
branches located throughout the U.S. in geographically strategic
locations, and a uniform elastic currency based on gold and
commercial paper (Fiat money). Aldrich believed a central banking
system with no political involvement was best, but was convinced by
Warburg that a plan with no public control was not politically feasible.
The compromise involved representation of the public sector on the Board
of Directors. (They wanted the people to "think" that they were in charge)

Aldrich's bill was met with much opposition from politicians.
Critics were suspicious of a central bank, and charged Aldrich
of being biased due to his own wealth and close ties to wealthy bankers
such as J. P. Morgan and (John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Aldrich's son-in-law).
Most Republicans favored the Aldrich Plan, but it lacked enough
support in Congress to pass because rural and western states viewed
it as favoring the "eastern establishment". In contrast, (progressive
Democrats favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government);
they believed that public ownership of the central bank would end Wall
Street's control of the American currency supply. Conservative Democrats
fought for a privately owned, yet decentralized, reserve system, which
would still be free of Wall Street's control. (Nice thought, but it
never happened)

The original Aldrich Plan/scam was dealt a fatal blow in 1912, when
Democrats won the White House and Congress. Nonetheless, President
Woodrow Wilson believed that the Aldrich plan would suffice with a
few modifications. The plan became the basis for the Federal Reserve
Act, which was proposed by Senator Robert Owen in May 1913. (The
primary difference between the two bills was the transfer of control
of the Board of Directors called the Federal Open Market Committee
in the Federal Reserve Act to the government). Even though the
government had oversight of the Federal Reserve it has never actually
pursued this responsibility, allowing laws to be changed later to benefit
the Financial interests. The bill passed Congress in late 1913.