Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[Greenbeard]

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

But the health care law cites specific Constitutional authority, right in the text (focuses mostly on the Commerce Clause). Under the new rule that means it must be okay, right?

Oh, legislation can cite Constitutional authority and you can disagree with it? Just like now? Bummer.

 

[rightwinger]

Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards

 

[Big Fitz]

Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards

Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office. I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.

 

[rightwinger]

oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em. There we go.

Anyone who questions the Constitutionality of a bill is allowed to take it up with the courts....Thats the way it has worked for 200+ years

 

[rightwinger]

Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards

Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office. I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.

Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner

 

[Big Fitz]

oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em. There we go.

Anyone who questions the Constitutionality of a bill is allowed to take it up with the courts....Thats the way it has worked for 200+ years

works great when you actually have justices who believe in the originlist view of the constitution too. Something that has been in doubt since FDR threatened to pack the court and they went political in the 1960's. We've been stuck with only 4 for far too long now.

 

[rightwinger]

oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em. There we go.

Anyone who questions the Constitutionality of a bill is allowed to take it up with the courts....Thats the way it has worked for 200+ years

works great when you actually have justices who believe in the originlist view of the constitution too. Something that has been in doubt since FDR threatened to pack the court and they went political in the 1960's. We've been stuck with only 4 for far too long now.

What makes our country great is we have justices who are conservative and justices who are liberal. It is the adjustments of policies and the swings from left to right that mean we eventually get it right

Our Constitution is the culmination of 200+ years of judicial interpretation. This enables us to have a system that meets the needs of an evolving society

 

[Big Fitz]

Checks and balances have nothing to do with political party.

 

[The T]

Checks and balances have nothing to do with political party.

Indeed. And the Congress can turn right around and overrule the Courts.

The Courts NEVER have the Final say. It only appears that way to most.

The People do through Congress.

 

[Cuyo]

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
Have you read the Constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?

How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.

Whoa Intense, all I did was point out the irony that Avy cited the very Section that contained the general welfare clause in the same post in which s/he claimed it didn't exist. Easy with all the tyranny and evil omnipresent government stuff. You're gonna give some of our less intelligent members nightmares.

And of course... Merry Christmas for the next 33 minutes!

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution? Why have judges to interpret it?

It is the only hope the Left has.....


They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People

obviously you meant to say "the right".

LMOAO, but they won't get the joke...

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Since so many Republican Congressmen confuse the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution......It might be a good idea

John Boehner reads the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or something. | cleveland.com

when Boehner joined the tea party, he waved a copy of "the Constitution" and read from it.

Except his words were from the Declaration of Independence.

An excuse can be made that what Boehner actually waved is a booklet given to all Congress members, and it includes both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Problem, is, Boehner said, "This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm going to stand here with our founding fathers, who wrote in the preamble, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident ...' "

Thanks for the laugh, I needed a good one...

 

[Big Fitz]

Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards

Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office. I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.

Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner

Highly doubtful. How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch? Directly against the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ex post facto. The skel fizzle has no idea what the words mean or how they are used, or he would not have written something as stupid as that.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh, I so see this coming back to bite them in the ass.

 

[Sallow]

Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards

Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office. I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.

And point out in the Constitution where it has that sort of Litmus test.

Michelle Bachman would have failed miserably..btw.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, I so see this coming back to bite them in the ass.

You notice they almost all ran away.

 

[zzzz]

Checks and balances have nothing to do with political party.

Indeed. And the Congress can turn right around and overrule the Courts.

The Courts NEVER have the Final say. It only appears that way to most.

The People do through Congress.

Congress cannot over rule the courts if the court says it is unconstituional. They can ammend the Constitution and the state legislatures must concurr to overturn any constitutional ruling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The T is a radical leftist uber-leftist who always believes in the rule of the majority.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office. I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.

Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner

Highly doubtful. How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch? Directly against the constitution.

At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution

So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm