Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama should veto any 'Gang of 12' plan that doesn't effectively repeal Bush high-income tax cuts (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  because of a bill that passed congress (0+ / 0-)

    already, with all of the requirements of bicameralism and presentment.  

    it may or may not violate the will of the people, but that happens all the time.

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:09:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There have been statutes passed by Congress (0+ / 0-)

      before that violated the Constitution.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:16:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  based on the substance, (0+ / 0-)

        not the manner in which they passed.  the only exceptions i can think of are issues like the legislative veto or provisions in Gramm-Rudman that resulted in congress usurping executive functions, but those are not really questions of how the statutes themselves were passed.  

        what's more, questions of budgeting aren't justiciable in court.  if the president thinks Congress didn't really pass him a bill, he should use the pocket veto.  Otherwise, no harm no foul, as far as procedure is concerned.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:20:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not arguing process. (0+ / 0-)

          The substance is the issue and the provision for the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is unconstitutional if it takes away powers from our representatives no matter how it was passed.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:26:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  how are you not arguing process? (0+ / 0-)

            the only power it takes away is the ability to amend legislation proposed by said joint committee, and that's a power given up by the elected representatives as part of a bill to raise the debt ceiling.  

            In the senate, there's actually just a gentleman's agreement not to filibuster or have amendments, since it operates by unanimous consent.  in the house, to say this is unconstitutional requires declaring the rules committee unconstitutional, which may be keeping with the spirit of the law, but its flatly contradicted by the letter of the Constitution.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:34:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ignoring the trigger mechanism (0+ / 0-)

              That's what's different. It's more than just taking away the power to amend.  It forces cuts and consequences if the recommendation of a committee is ignored.
              Rules committee is not at issue here. The law passed with the Super Congress (that's why the term's been coined to point out how far off the reservation the provision for the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is).
              The Supreme Court would not be asked about the process in this case but the substance of having a Super Congress spliced into our law making powers of Congress with respect to the Constitutional intent.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:41:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the triggers are part of the underlying bill (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ferg

                there's a lot not to like about the supercommittee, even though it is the best bet at getting a tax increase thru, but it's not unconstitutional.  the supercongress can't do anything without a vote by the two houses, and if they don't do anything, a vote by the two houses of congress that has already happened is what takes effect.  calling it a supercongress does not in fact make it a supercongress.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:48:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think it matters that (0+ / 0-)

                  a Super Congress or Super Committee or whatever you want to call it doesn't have direct powers to enact legislation.
                  Congress doesn't have the power to abdicate its powers of the purse in budget or revenue questions.
                  You can't necessarily kick the can down the road by passing one law that null and voids a process that always use to involve the whole Congress in final passage.

                  Put another way, because they couldn't pass a law involving defined cuts with an agreement on raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean they can then agree to force the Congress as a whole - with the minority who wouldn't go along with the blackmail - to watch the cuts happen automatically if they don't go along with Blackmail 2.0.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:10:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  And this one introduces a predetermined (0+ / 0-)

        set of consequences apart from proportional representation.
        One more irony in the de-evolution of our politics: The tyranny of the Majority is used in the original bill to take away majority rule.  Even as we allowed a minority to hold this nation hostage.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:22:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site