Hold on a hard second here. Your presentation of the supercommittee and triggered cuts are factually dubious. The 1.2trillion in deficit reduction over ten years were decided upon as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, passed under normal legislative terms, as are what is to be cut - the supercommittee would only change the form of this, not the overall act thereof.
In order for your argument to carry any weight, you'd also have to show that the cuts are unique to the supercommittee situation - and given that the whole purpose of making the committee's decisions lead to an immediate up/down, 50%+1 vote, not subject to amendments, house "majority of the majority" blocks or senatorial filibuster is, in fact, to expedite the process ASAP, arguing that the committee would be in any way less effective than the standard amendment process is going to be... uh.
Ugh, just woke up (literally--I had a small kitten pounce on my eye), so I'll try to remember to come back to this post-everything-today, but for starters, have an article. Further, bear in mind that the super committee is to pass 1.5trillion in cuts, while the triggered cuts will automatically be 1.2trillion. They're not the same cuts. (I'll get into the fact that I don't feel that expediting the legislative process is in anyone's best interests as it's not how our legislative process works later, like after I'm more with it.)
I'll have to get back to you on the rest of this too - finally, a job interview - but three notes:
A. the 1.5tn/1.2tn difference doesn't mitigate my argument that the committee's job is ultimately to modify an existing bill-in-effect, as this is functionally identical to the modifications and replacements of amendments in other bills,
B. the expedition of legislative process is one that can be voted on at any time ("move to vote"), and is only unique in this instance in that a prior bill and vote establishes a majority agreement to do so, and
C. the Dartmouth Review's conservative, strict-interpretation leanings does not match well with judicial opinion on the issue.
Comments 6
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
In order for your argument to carry any weight, you'd also have to show that the cuts are unique to the supercommittee situation - and given that the whole purpose of making the committee's decisions lead to an immediate up/down, 50%+1 vote, not subject to amendments, house "majority of the majority" blocks or senatorial filibuster is, in fact, to expedite the process ASAP, arguing that the committee would be in any way less effective than the standard amendment process is going to be... uh.
Difficult. Very, excruciatingly difficult ( ... )
Reply
Reply
A. the 1.5tn/1.2tn difference doesn't mitigate my argument that the committee's job is ultimately to modify an existing bill-in-effect, as this is functionally identical to the modifications and replacements of amendments in other bills,
B. the expedition of legislative process is one that can be voted on at any time ("move to vote"), and is only unique in this instance in that a prior bill and vote establishes a majority agreement to do so, and
C. the Dartmouth Review's conservative, strict-interpretation leanings does not match well with judicial opinion on the issue.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment