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

  •  No other committee before had automatic (0+ / 0-)

    conditions attached.
    That is unconstitutional to predetermine consequences of not abiding a committees recommendations.  They've always been just that, recommendations to the FULL congress.
    That's the meaning of the word CONGRESS.  The full power has to ultimately rest as defined by the Constitution in the convening of the Peoples Congress.  Not the convening of committees.
    We are not a Government by the Committee For the Committee.


    by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:33:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of course they had (0+ / 0-)

      The BRAC committee has had automatic conditions since day one. There are others.

      And these aren't 'automatic' UNLESS there's no agreement. The recommendations still have to go through Congress - but if Congress doesn't approve them, the 'automatic' part kicks in.

      The 'automatic' part has been approved by Congress and signed by the President, so it's just like any other law that's been passed.

      •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)
        This panel evaluated the list by taking testimony from interested parties and paying visits to affected bases. The BRAC Commission had the opportunity to add bases to the list, and did so in a July 19, 2005 hearing. The Commission met their deadline of September 2005 to provide the evaluated list to the President, who approved the list with the condition that the list could only be approved or disapproved in its entirety - wikipedia.

        See my bold. Nothing "automatic" or predetermined cuts if the list was disapproved.

        See the critical and unconstitutional difference here?

        Not being automatic if Congress doesn't accede to the committee is hardly an argument for an advanced democracy.
        It's a case in the negative you're making to boot.

        You're third point about it being "just like any other law" in how it was passed is irrelevant in a Constitutional question. Many laws have been passed with the right process that have proven to be against the Constitution.


        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 10:56:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll add that most likely the provision in the (0+ / 0-)

          Health Insurance Reform bill forcing citizens to purchase private insurance will be one of those instances soon enough.

          Congress effs-up some times.


          by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 11:01:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site