majorspark;850912 wrote:True. But I believe these go too far. I'll admit the power to suspend each houses legislative rules the constitution gives each house the power to write, is walking the constitutional fence. But they are planning to use this committee to generate revenue. The constitution is clear All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

Revenue generating legislation will originate in this Committe that has members of the Senate and then sent to the house as a fully finalized bill. Clear violation.

A leading (the leading?) libertarian scholar weighs in and supports the notion that this committee is constitutional:

http://volokh.com/2011/08/08/the-constitutionality-of-the-joint-select-committee-on-deficit-reduction-established-by-the-recent-debt-ceiling-act/

fan_from_texas;857460 wrote:A leading (the leading?) libertarian scholar weighs in and supports the notion that this committee is constitutional:

http://volokh.com/2011/08/08/the-constitutionality-of-the-joint-select-committee-on-deficit-reduction-established-by-the-recent-debt-ceiling-act/

As stated in my post you quoted. I admitted the legislative rules issue walked the constitutional fence. Volokh noted a provision in the act that I was not aware of. “The provisions of this title are enacted by Congress ... with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.” With that provision the existence of the "Super Committee" would arguably lean to the constitutional side of the fence. No joint congressional committee with such power has existed in our 200+ year history. Expect some scrutiny. It smells bad.

The main constitutional roadblock I have with this committee is potential revenue generation. Volokh in the link you provide did not address the issue of revenue generation likely originating out of this committee. I'd be interested in how he would square that with the constitution and its clear statement that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

This committee is not a House body. It is 50% Senate. Originating in the house as the framers intended meant any revenue generating legislation would pass the full house under its rules with a majority of its 435 members. The originating legislation would be would be a full bill solely the work of the House. This committee has no direct authority given to it by the house to generate revenue.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/08/ethics-group-urges-super-committee-members-to-stop-fundraising.html

"The establishment of the super committee allows special interests to focus with unprecedented precision on twelve policymakers with unprecedented authority to affect spending cuts and revenue in virtually all sectors of our economy," Sloan wrote in the letter. "As congressional leaders, you have the opportunity to instill confidence that any agreements the super committee reaches were made in the interests of the American people, not special interests."

How dare me question the central committee. Or its authority to generate revenue. Its a given now.

Lobbyists are flocking like vultures on the "12". At least we have made it easier. Isn't central power great. Damn that partisan bickering.