A Super Committee is illegal, unlawful, and Unconstitutional!
It seems a lot of people on both THE RIGHT and THE LEFT agree on this.
The House and Senate leaders announced the 12 members of the Dirty Debt Deal “Super-Committee” (listed below) who are tasked with identifying $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years before the debt ceiling can be increased again. If no deal is reached, automatic across-the-board cuts will be made in spending.
- The Super Committee creates a mini “super” Congress whose conclusions will be put on the fast track for approval without any opportunity for our elected officials to revise or amend.
- The Super Committee’s conclusions must come up for an “up or down” vote with no opportunity for Senate filibuster. Majority rules!
- Seven members of Congress (including Senators) have been empowered to raise taxes when the Constitution stipulates that all revenue bills must originate in the House.
- The committee will have until Nov. 23, 2011 to propose ways to reduce deficits. Those proposals must be voted on by Dec. 23. 2011...or the budget axe falls indiscriminately...and the elderly and poor will be made to disproportionately suffer the most.
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States..."
Abridge (defined) "To reduce or lessen in scope, authority, etc. - to diminish or curtail."
The Super Committee is unconstitutional because it gives all legislative power to select members of Congress who will have the authority to hike Americans’ taxes without debate, without amendments, without a filibuster, and without constituents’ input.
On this ONE ISSUE ONLY, would I ever agree with Rep. Michele Bachmann, but for a different reason. Yet Think Progress says, "Any bill that emerges from the committee must still be passed by both houses and signed by the president, just like any other law."
But this doesn't seem to be correct either...wasn't the whole reason in the first place for forming a Super Committee was because Congress couldn't agree anything? It was also because of the radical far-right wing Tea Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives who held the debt ceiling hostage to our financial obligations as a country, threatened to shut down our government, reduced our country's credit rating, and set back prices on the New York Stock Exchange in the process...destroying untold wealth.
The 12-member Super Committee has two representatives from the State of Michigan (both Republicans) and one from Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, California, and South Carolina.
The 12 members on the Super Committee is a mini-dictatorship and unconstitutional, as only 11 States are being represented, 39 are not. Our government is by-passing our votes with our elected members to Congress. It is inconsistent with the democratic principles of our Republic - and Ron Paul is one of many who agree.
The 12 Members
(6 Democrats and 6 Republicans - read each of their brief summaries)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas (Republican and committee co-chair)
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona (Republican)
Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania (Republican)
Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio (Republican)
Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan (Republican)
Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan (Republican)
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington (Democrat and committee co-chair)
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (Democrat)
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts (Democrat)
Sen. Max "99 weeks is sufficient" Baucus of Montana (Democrat)
Rep. Xavier Becerra of California (Democrat)
Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina (Democrat)
|The 12 members selected to sit on the committee represent just 16 percent of the American population...so why is it that we always have the 1% who always rules over the 99%? Aren't Americans supposed to be "self-governing"?|
Only stupid people would tell 'Occupy' protesters to get a job; many are protesting because they can't find jobs. People protest because their leaders won't listen to them. Then when their leaders still won't listen to them, only then does it sometimes turn violent. And that's when the leaders (who are usually wealthy) blame the protesters (who are usually poor) for being violent.
It's ironic, because our Founding Fathers also had to use violence so that America could have its freedom from tyrannical British rule. Then later violence was used again in our Civil War to gain freedom for the African-Americans. Violence was also needed to topple Hitler, to obtain American worker's rights, to win our Civil Rights, and to end the Vietnam War. Who would have listened to just mere complaints? We have already written and faxed and called our Senators...they only ignored us, they wouldn't listen.
It has always necessitated the use of violence, all throughout the history of mankind, that has brought about fair play and justice for the masses, to wrestle the unjust rule from the 1% - to see corruption and greed eradicated from badly formed governments. It was either that, or the complete destruction of a whole society, such as the Roman Empire. How often did a peon dethrone a king with a peaceful protestation? The king would have used violence and had the peon tortured and beheaded.
The powerful NEVER give up their power without force.
It's almost odd how the poor, the unemployed, and the disenfranchised are always blamed for a country's problems, especially in the middle of a national crisis, if it can't be blamed on a foreign country. The buck always seems to stop with the last poor man still standing.
Why does Fox News and the Republicans always accuse the poor of being crazy anti-capitalist left-wing lunatics? Aren't there also a few socially conservative evangelistic far-right wing lunatics that are also poor?"
When the will of THE PEOPLE is denied, when they are not being represented by their elected leaders, when members of Congress will only do the bidding of their wealthiest campaign donors, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ The Declaration of Independence.
Is it possible for a nation to have one or more revolutions or civil wars and come out the better for it? Are millions of people supposed to just sit passively and accept the fact that they're being denied a livelihood - a job - and not rise up against those who deprive them of their Right to Life?
Now we have 12 human beings deciding the fate of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, unemployment benefits, and food stamps for hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions -of poor and unemployed people. And those that still have a means of support, are insisting that these people should be sacrificed for the national defense of a country in military spending while millions remain in poverty and worry about the most basic necessities if life, such as housing, heat, and food.
First, a Super Committee to determine our government spending. What will they be empowered to decide on next? Mass incarcerations? Will a Super Committee ignite a Civil War?
Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey
PLEASE NOTE: Half of Congress should also have to recuse themselves from voting on the Millionaire Tax Plan (the "Buffett Rule") because they are millionaires themselves, and are also part of the 1%. But do any of us really expect THAT to happen? Congress and the wealthy rule, while the masses are being forced to comply.