The reality of the "Super Congress....

People have been venting about this for a week, on everything EXCEPT the relevant issue: who participates.

FACT 1: The Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress. it says nothing about how that legislation is developed, other than that revenue bills muSt originate in the House of Representatives.

FACT 2: The House and Senate develop their own rules and procedures, which have traditionally placed the authority to produce and review legislation to Committees, and have limited the ability of Members to modify that legislation when it comes to the floor for a vote. Those rules are subject to change at any time.

We can complain all we want about whether this proposal is meritorious or not, but we're spinning our wheels fixating on whether it's "legal".

More importantly however, we're spending any time on how to pressure the House and Senate Dems to ensure that progressive voices are included on the Committee in fair proportion to the Conservatives tea-Partiers that will certainly be appointed by the Republicans.

The only people that politicians listen to are those with BIG MONEY!

And that includes Obama.

The commissars will be from the plutocracy party, all of them.

major issues that were handled in this extra Congressional way? Joint Committees, it seems to me, are not all that common, and usually have either broad investigatory goals or very mundane goals, such as organizing Inaugurals and such.
Can you share other issues that went to such a committee that are equally important as Social Security or Medicare?

...are fast-tracked, with no ability to amend, or filibuster, and with restricted debate.

The recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure commission are fast-tracked, with no ability to amend, and with restricted debate, although the latter is not baked into the rule under which the recommendations come to the floor.

Any number of trade agreements, and the treaties that give them force, have been fast-tracked, with no, or a limited number, of amendments, and restricted debate.

This is not that unusual a procedure. And it's been used since 1939.

Sarah Binder, over at The Monkey Cage, has a history and discussion.

disingenuous. One wonders about the cavalier nature of such posts.

Look at what "insignificants" and their social networking did in Egypt. That was some kind of bloodless (almost) revolution.

The Founders warned of the kind of damage factional politics could do to us, their descendants. But they did nothing about these massive loopholes in the constitution they framed. The economic lifeline of the new republic was left in the hands of a legislative body that indeed became factional almost immediately.

"Super-congress"? I dunno. Not if it is the same as the present congress - factional and all. There has to be another way.

Power is money. Political power is big money and whoever controls the political bodies of government controls the huge amount of money used to run government.

How can we change the budget process to a neutral one, studied and prepared apolitically and without regard for any special interests?

Or do we need to get out our social networking tools and have our own revolution and jump start this republic all over again?