Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

[JimB]

who's blowing smoke here????

 

[GunGrey]

let them come

 

[Twigg]

Suddenly I feel I need more food, medical supplies and whole lot more ammo.

Tin foil ? Perhaps. There were an awuful lot of people here saying BO was unelectable too.

 

[je25ff]

Double secret congress.

 

[dcmdon]

I'm not a constitutional expert (more like a constitutional dabbler), but I don't understand the argument that this "Super Congress" or "Super Committee" would be unconstitutional. Without going into the pros/cons of whether this Super Congress is a good idea, I'm curious why some here (and elsewhere) are saying this would be unconstitutional. As I understand it, the idea is that this would be similar to how the current committee system works, with some exceptions. This Super Committee will propose legislation, and that legislation will go to the entire body of the House and Senate for an up or down vote. The only difference is that they are changing the rules so that no amendments or filibusters are allowed. Article 1, Section 5 states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . ." If they make a rule that says this is how it is going to work, as long as there is an up or down vote by the full body, I don't see the constitutional issue. There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the current committee system, filibuster, the powers of the Speaker of the House, etc. Those things are governed by the rules each body sets up, and this Super Congress shouldn't be different.

Thats a FANTASTIC point. So this committee's bills will not be allowed to be amended or filibustered. But those provisions exist because of procedural rules, not the constitution. Rules that congress is free to change. I get it.

So no constitutional crisis.

Its funny, since this thread popped up, I've been looking for articles on this topic and it seems the Dems are the ones all worked up into a lather.

 

[mikem317]

Time to stock up on some clearance price US Constitutions!

(Picture taken from Capitol Hill gift shop)

 

[TheRoland]

This is silly. This is beyond tin-foil land into Reptoid territory. Gun Owners of America should be better than to write this goushi.

 

[mikem317]

This is silly. This is beyond tin-foil land into Reptoid territory. Gun Owners of America should be better than to write this goushi.

Five years ago, I bet you didn't think that grandmothers across the country-formally-known-as-America would be getting their naked pictures taken at airports.

 

[TheRoland]

Five years ago, I bet you didn't think that grandmothers across the country-formally-known-as-America would be getting their naked pictures taken at airports.

The creeping security state has zero to do with the fact that this is not the sort of thing this budgetary committee is going to care about. It might have something to do with the fact the Gun Owners of America will apparently tell any lie to advance their political agenda on the backs of actual gun owners.

Seriously, there's enough to be concerned about without getting angry about every unrealistic distortion these bullshit artists come up with. The GOA has proven, time and again, they don't know how Washington works, and don't particularly care to learn.

The GOA's use of "we" when talking about killing gun legislation and things like stopping Goodwin Liu is especially rich, and does not reflect reality either.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The creeping security state has zero to do with the fact that this is not the sort of thing this budgetary committee is going to care about. It might have something to do with the fact the Gun Owners of America will apparently tell any lie to advance their political agenda on the backs of actual gun owners.

Seriously, there's enough to be concerned about without getting angry about every unrealistic distortion these bullshit artists come up with. The GOA has proven, time and again, they don't know how Washington works, and don't particularly care to learn.

The GOA's use of "we" when talking about killing gun legislation and things like stopping Goodwin Liu is especially rich, and does not reflect reality either.

Today a "budgetary" committee, tomorrow, the "gun control" committee. They're going to get a whole lot of people killed in the process of their foolish endeavors.

 

[Knob Creek]

That does it. I'm putting them on "Double Secret Probation"

 

[Fixxah]

I'm done. Bring it.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[TheRoland]

Today a "budgetary" committee, tomorrow, the "gun control" committee. They're going to get a whole lot of people killed in the process of their foolish endeavors.

I'll just say that nobody except the GOA thinks that's true. There's a reason you're not seeing the NRA, who actually does real work in Washington and knows politics, being concerned about this.

I think you might be looking too hard for things to be angry about, and not seeing what's actually there.

 

[cekim]

I think you might be looking too hard for things to be angry about, and not seeing what's actually there.

As do I, but I can forgive the concern after the 4000 page healthcare bill...

We keep rushing through enormously complex, ill conceived legislation because Democrats and a sizeable portion of the RINO Republicans haven't yet figured out that we are already giving more than we had to give in the "great compromise" of society.

We have to slam the door on negotiations now because we gave repeated inches and they took light years.

As a consequence of this now broken process it is easy to believe that even well intentioned clauses to force budget cuts could create procedural shenanigans that would allow them to do all sorts of bad things.

I haven't yet seen any credible evidence that this is the case, but it's worth asking the question...

 

[mikem317]

The creeping security state has zero to do with the fact that this is not the sort of thing this budgetary committee is going to care about. It might have something to do with the fact the Gun Owners of America will apparently tell any lie to advance their political agenda on the backs of actual gun owners.

Seriously, there's enough to be concerned about without getting angry about every unrealistic distortion these bullshit artists come up with. The GOA has proven, time and again, they don't know how Washington works, and don't particularly care to learn.

The GOA's use of "we" when talking about killing gun legislation and things like stopping Goodwin Liu is especially rich, and does not reflect reality either.

Eh, then don't join GOA. Stick with the NRA. They're really good about defending gun rights! You know, like they're most recent screw-up with NH Constitutional Carry legislation.

 

[Bill Nance]

This is purely tinfoil. Do you guys believe everything you read?

 

[HTRN]

I'll just say that nobody except the GOA thinks that's true. There's a reason you're not seeing the NRA, who actually does real work in Washington and knows politics, being concerned about this.

I think you might be looking too hard for things to be angry about, and not seeing what's actually there.

Know what, you're right. I should trust the government. How silly of me to expect them to grab for more power.

Sent via Tapatalk. Please excuse typos.

 

[vicpinto]

Those are military ballots in John Kerry's closet. True story.

No. That's a stash of Kerry's Purple Hearts.

 

[bubajoe]

This is purely tinfoil. Do you guys believe everything you read?

The point of the article is that there was nothing in the spending bill that limited the super congress to economical issues only. Hopefully they wont do any worse than continue to devalued the dollar and extend our debt but its possible the propose other legislation since no boundaries were placed on the group still to be appointed. All Americans should be concerned about this, not just gun owners.

 

[dcmdon]

The point of the article is that there was nothing in the spending bill that limited the super congress to economical issues only. Hopefully they wont do any worse than continue to devalued the dollar and extend our debt but its possible the propose other legislation since no boundaries were placed on the group still to be appointed. All Americans should be concerned about this, not just gun owners.

even if that was entirely true, there is nothing in the Constitution about filibustering and amendments. Filibustering and the ability to add amendments to laws exist because of laws that define the procedures of congress. They were voted on by a simple majority. They can be changed or removed by a simple majority.

I may not like this change, but with even a cursory review of available public info, its pretty obvious that this is not unconstitutional. The people calling this unconstitutional are those that incorrectly believe that the right to filibuster and add amendments to bills is "enshrined" in the Constitution. Its not.

 

[bubajoe]

even if that was entirely true, there is nothing in the Constitution about filibustering and amendments. Filibustering and the ability to add amendments to laws exist because of laws that define the procedures of congress. They were voted on by a simple majority. They can be changed or removed by a simple majority.

I may not like this change, but with even a cursory review of available public info, its pretty obvious that this is not unconstitutional. The people calling this unconstitutional are those that incorrectly believe that the right to filibuster and add amendments to bills is "enshrined" in the Constitution. Its not.

Agreed, this is just a vehicle to fast track legislation but it circumvents the speaker and their choice what reaches the floor for a vote.

 

[Dick]

I'm not a constitutional expert (more like a constitutional dabbler), but I don't understand the argument that this "Super Congress" or "Super Committee" would be unconstitutional. Without going into the pros/cons of whether this Super Congress is a good idea, I'm curious why some here (and elsewhere) are saying this would be unconstitutional. As I understand it, the idea is that this would be similar to how the current committee system works, with some exceptions. This Super Committee will propose legislation, and that legislation will go to the entire body of the House and Senate for an up or down vote. The only difference is that they are changing the rules so that no amendments or filibusters are allowed. Article 1, Section 5 states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . ." If they make a rule that says this is how it is going to work, as long as there is an up or down vote by the full body, I don't see the constitutional issue. There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the current committee system, filibuster, the powers of the Speaker of the House, etc. Those things are governed by the rules each body sets up, and this Super Congress shouldn't be different.

Another entertaining tin hat thread ruined by a rational argument.

 

[dcmdon]

I really hate it when the people who we all pay to lobby on our behalf "cry wolf". It hurts all of our credibility.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I really hate it when the people who we all pay to lobby on our behalf "cry wolf". It hurts all of our credibility.

I hate it even more when those people who we all pay "TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS" which is government's first and foremost job, do all within their power to curtail those rights.

 

[dcmdon]

I don't disagree with you.

But this doesn't appear to be a case of that. If anything it seems like it will serve to limit the growth of government spending and therefore government's intrusion into our lives.

 

[dcmdon]

duplicate

 

[Twigg]

Who's worried ?
I'm confident Wayne LaPierre will be hard at work securing our hunting rights as soon as he's back from his latest safari.

 

[Dr_Scholl]

This is purely tinfoil. Do you guys believe everything you read?

No kidding, this shit got old 2 years ago.

 

[joeendris]

The gun lobby has plenty of money and money = power.

See how Mass .gov treats us? Live in a sheep-based liberal jackwagon state, and you can't even buy new equipment, like evil, new mags. Nope, instead, you have to suffer 15+ year old equipment at a minimum. And god-forbid anybody sees your carry, you're instantly turned into a criminal.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I don't disagree with you.

But this doesn't appear to be a case of that. If anything it seems like it will serve to limit the growth of government spending and therefore government's intrusion into our lives.

You must be smoking crack! The federal government and the ATF by themselves have never ceased their march to infringe, inhibit, prohibit or otherwise curtail American citizen's gun rights in my lifetime and there is no indication that they ever will short of a shooting war. If its not done by the super duper congress, it will be done by any number of other sleasy ways, including the feds running guns themselves to Mexico and Honduras then complaining that too many guns are being shipped south and ending up in the hands of drug cartels. If you trust them as far as you could throw them, you either are one of them or are completely naive of whats happening in your country.