GOA Alert. Super Congress

[pyld]

Do these idiots want civil war? I mean I realiz the idea of the super congress and it is 6 of each party, but they really need to confine themselves to spending or cutting and not getting involved in other stuff. I cant believe repubs are going to go along with this.

Google "reconciliation." The threat of this happening is just as present every year if one can argue that the law in question somehow impacts the budget.

I am boldly to predict that nothing of the sort is included in the bill that's reported.

[GeneCC]

I don't see it as Congress giving up its own power. They're telling 12 individuals who are members of the Legislature to draft a proposal, concurred with by a simple majority of the Committee, that the entire Congress will vote on without chance to amend. It's not unheard of for Congress to be forced to vote without being able to amend (for example, budget reconciliations*), so this doesn't strike me as particularly offensive. In fact, I see it as a feature, not a bug. It avoids exactly the kind of theatrics that getting the Committee was designed theoretically to avoid.

*: Yes, technically, a budget reconciliation can be amended in some very limited circumstances, but the overall point still stands.

Seems like the Committee of 12 is reasonable for Budget issues. Already a precedent for it since the "Budget Reconciliation" is "up or down".

Why do some folks suspect that the Committee will expand its reach into other issues such as gun laws? Be just as easy for the Committee to outlaw abortion, legalize marijuana, ban Internet Porn or many other "hot button" issues as pass a few new gun laws.

Seems a lot easier for the Gun Control Lobby to organize a Saturday vote on ratifying a Gun Control Treaty than to use this Committee to get their dirty work done. As I recall all they need is a "majority of Senators Present". How hard would that be to do under the right circumstances?

[FNG19]

As I recall all they need is a "majority of Senators Present". How hard would that be to do under the right circumstances?

I thought so, too, but it seems we're both wrong. Article II ("The Executive Branch"), Section 2 ("Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments") states:

(...)
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; (...)

Considering more than 50 senators signed onto letters from both parties expressing serious concerns with the civilian ownership aspects of the Arms Treaty, it stands to reason that the 67 votes required to ratify the treaty aren't there.

[RobW]

Do we have to try to connect the dots with everything?

The budget "Super Committee" has NOTHING to do with the ratification of the UN treaty. Ok, Congress-critters are the actors in both cases - maybe that's what you meant .....