Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,656
Likes
19,918
Feedback: 121 / 0 / 0
Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

Monday, 01 August 2011 12:07

Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Both houses of Congress will be voting on a debt ceiling bill that establishes a legislative committee with TREMENDOUS powers. Fox News is calling this committee a SUPER CONGRESS, because its legislative proposals (which could include gun control provisions) CANNOT be filibustered or amended in the Senate or House.

To understand what a huge deal this is, consider that House Speaker John Boehner is able to keep a mountain of gun control bills from coming to the floor of the House. That’s the power of the Speaker.

And in the Senate, we have been able to kill much of the gun control agenda by filibustering legislation (that is, requiring the Majority Leader to get a supermajority or 60 votes in order to pass gun control).

The most recent example of this occurred earlier this year when we defeated a radical, anti-gun judicial nomination (Goodwin Liu) using the filibuster. The filibuster has been our saving grace in the Senate, but that could be tossed within the next 24 hours.

Regarding the debt ceiling compromise, here’s what one legislative analyst (inside a Republican office on Capitol Hill) had to say:

Right now, we have limited protection from the schemes of the left – even if they have some Republican support, we have a speaker who wouldn’t bring horrible bills to the floor, and we have the Senate filibuster.

Both of these are rendered moot by the Super committee. There is NO Senate filibuster on the product they report. The Speaker CANNOT stop a vote in the House….

[Hence], 22 liberal Republicans can join the Congressional Democrats and the President in: Closing the gun show “loophole,” banning semi-automatic weapons, creating a national handgun registration, or ordering state gun laws moot.

A super highway for gun control legislation? This is incredibly unconstitutional! We don’t elect a Congress, which can then turn around and elect a SUPER committee. We need to make sure this never lands on the President’s desk.

ACTION: Please email and call your Representative and Senators. Urge them to vote NO on establishing this SUPER CONGRESS with unconstitutional powers.

http://gunowners.org/a08012011.htm

---

Obama would love this. Maybe this is what he means by "under the radar".
 
ammoStockpile.JPG
 
This press release is pure idiocy. Let us know the name of this supercongress in the legislation.

Seriously, treat us like intellient people and spare us the application of stupid terms.
I can't stand press releases that simply say "This is happening" then give some buzzword and urge us to call our congressman. I want INFORMATION.

Supercongress makes about as much sense as Assault Clips.

Don

p.s. The powers of the 3 branches of government are clearly enumerated in the consitution. While the Government has been expanding its power incrimentally for the last 230 years, the creation of a "supercongress" would be . . . impossible.
p.p.s. please don't tell me I'm naive, just realistic. The antis will do their best to do what they can within the framework of existing law. BHO has not used the power of the executive order against us. But he will. Thats the real immediate threat.

p.p.p.s. Pernox - isn't it great how the russian ammo comes packed in 30 round bundles. It makes it so much easier to load mags than trying to break 20 rd boxes into 30 rd mags.
 
Last edited:
There is very little info out there what this 12 member group's limit's would be other than that their debt reduction bills could not be ammended or fillibustered.

This does sound like its outside the constitution. The original intent is clear, to prevent individual members from adding earmarks to spending bills as amendments.

This leaves open the following in my mind:

1) who is on the committee?
house or senate members?
what is the breakdown D v R?
who decides who is on the committee??

2) if its limited authority is budget work, what is the worry?
 
2) if its limited authority is budget work, what is the worry?

Because they'd attach whatever they want to any budget-related bill.

Also, think about how the Feds have abused the interstate commerce clause, then answer this question:

Is there any bill that doesn't involve money or financing?
 
Good point Eddie.

I still think its alarmist to make a big deal until we see how it is made up.

Also, remember, whatever they recommend, it still has to be voted on by both houses of congress.
I suspect a libertarian group will challenge this in court and it will be struck down.

Don
 
Whats next, the "Super Duper Congress"??

I so hope they do it.

I think the next step is to elect BO an emperor (one more unconstitutional act of many) with emergency powers to swiftly deal with the enemies of the people.

Gunshow season and cheaper ammo can't get here quick enough.
 
Good point Eddie.

I still think its alarmist to make a big deal until we see how it is made up.

Also, remember, whatever they recommend, it still has to be voted on by both houses of congress.
I suspect a libertarian group will challenge this in court and it will be struck down.

Don

The fact that any American would even propose such an idea is cause for alarm. This is nothing more than a stepping stone to give one person ultimate power in this country. Since we can't get 535 people to agree on something, let's break it down to 12 people whose suggestions don't get to go through our normal republican process as outlined in the Constitution. When these 12 people can't agree on something, we'll break it down to just 3 people whose suggestions are automatically law, without even being voted on by congress, and when these three 3 people can't agree one person steps in and takes full power over the country.

It's happened before. Just look at the regulations pushed forth by the FDA, EPA, ATF, FCC, FTC, DHS etc. All these agencies were created to give one person (or a few people) unquestionable control over huge portions of our lives...all in the name of the common good. The fact that there are people that are ok with this is appauling.
 
I still think its alarmist to make a big deal until we see how it is made up.

Also, remember, whatever they recommend, it still has to be voted on by both houses of congress.
I suspect a libertarian group will challenge this in court and it will be struck down.

Don

Are you suggesting that we pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it? [smile] Basically ignore it until we can see just how bad it actually is in practice, then leave it to some unknown group to later challenge it in court?
 
I think the next step is to elect BO an emperor (one more unconstitutional act of many) with emergency powers to swiftly deal with the enemies of the people.

Gunshow season and cheaper ammo can't get here quick enough.

Hmmm. This sounds familliar. Like a story I read somewhere in a book. When has this happened before? I can't quite place my finger.....
 
Are you suggesting that we pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it? [smile] Basically ignore it until we can see just how bad it actually is in practice, then leave it to some unknown group to later challenge it in court?

No I'm not. I'm saying that we need more info. As much as I like GOAL and the NRA I don't blindly parrot what they tell me to say.
Often times, particularly with the NRA, they engage in the same kind of alarmist rhetoric as the antis.

Have any people who really understand constitutional law commented on this legislation in an adult way. i.e. actually describing what would happen in adult terms rather than idiotic termis like super-congress.

Don
 
Smells like tinfoil to me.

Even if it's not.... bring it on, bitches! [devil2]

-Mike
 
Smells like tinfoil to me.

Even if it's not.... bring it on, bitches! [devil2]

-Mike
As with most things .gov does it was likely done wrong and will have unintended consequences, but most of bitching I've seen is from the left pissed that cuts will come without vote if they don't "agree" on them beforehand.

It's a reasonable question to ask what other BS they could sneak in there as they clearly played this game with the Patriot Act and the Healthcare bill, but so far I think it's foil...
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom