Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[JakeStarkey]

The dimwits here are neither liberal or conservative. They are either reactionaries or libertarians, the scum of American politics.

 

[Jackson]

Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.

or that you have to buy something

That would be the dimwits version of the constitution.

How many servings of a vegetable you should have a day ...and buy it for them..(School breakfeast and lunch programs);

or that you have to buy something for someone else (Health Insurance...)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
Won't be hard to justify

We all, at least all of we that know of these things, understand that the "General Welfare Clause" grants the power to tax and spend, but not the power to enact the legislation that defines that spending.
That's what the following 16 clauses of Article I Section 8 are for.

Your opinion, sure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.

What happens when a dem controlled congress is asked to support an unconstitutional presidentially sponsored article of legislation? (see 2006-2008 for answer)

It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors. But good luck there, nobody is more responsible for constitutionality creep than the courts.

Bush was more constitutional than obamaturd and gore put together. Stop the socialist crying.

Stop your loony libertarian whining.

ps: you wouldn't know a socialist from a social democrat from a social republican.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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".

No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.

You are so right, wizard of the loonies. That's why the court battles on Obamacare are raging. The liberals are trying . . . oh, that's right: they are not.

 

[Neotrotsky]

obviously you meant to say "the right".

No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.

You are so right, wizard of the loonies. That's why the court battles on Obamacare are raging. The liberals are trying . . . oh, that's right: they are not.

Jake,

it seems a little unfair to call him names for expressing a truth.

Unless, do you have some "stats" to show how more "right wing" causes have had to use the courts than "left wing" to impose their agenda?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.

You are so right, wizard of the loonies. That's why the court battles on Obamacare are raging. The liberals are trying . . . oh, that's right: they are not.

Jake,

it seems a little unfair to call him names for expressing a truth.

Unless, do you have some "stats" to show how more "right wing" causes have had to use the courts than "left wing" to impose their agenda?

I have no trouble with conservatives, centrists, or liberals. They all care about America. The libertarians are different matter: they appear to care only for themselves and nothing for the country that has given them opportunity to truly achieve.

 

[nraforlife]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.

 

[rightwinger]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.

Try reading it

 

[jillian]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.

Try reading it

shhhhhhh... that would mean they actually have to learn something

 

[JakeStarkey]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.

"treasonous judges"? Kiddo, we are not going back to 1791.

 

[jillian]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.

"treasonous judges"? Kiddo, we are not going back to 1791.

even in 1791 they didn't think like that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.

Really.
Specifically, how did the decisions in Bush v Gore violate the constitution?

It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors.

According to whom/what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.

Really.
Specifically, how did the decisions in Bush v Gore violate the constitution?

It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors.

According to whom/what?

Well, you can begin with the rationale used in Marbury. You could go back and investigage how many states recognized favorably the concept of judicial review in their state constitutions as well as how many Founders wrote and thought about it.

M14, your question has no probative relevance here at all. The question of judicial review and the relevance of the 10th Amendment has no relevance to the OP, other than reading the Constitution at the Congress is a very good thing. Maybe some of the social values conservatives will stop whining about amending their religious positions into our charter document.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's a rule that should have always been in effect.

It also makes law suit challenges easier to define.

Exactly, it should cut down on Court cases as well. or at least make them quicker as the Defense of the law will be known before hand.

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would be up in arms about this rule. Unless of course they have plans to push through laws that have no constitutional Citing to justify them.

I also find it funny the left is trying to label the house leadership as radical. As that highlights just how far out of touch the left has come. as if wanting to spend with in our means, and make sure were are following the constitution are "Radical" ideas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure. It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning. Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.

 

[Charles_Main]

I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure. It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning. Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.

It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure. It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning. Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.

It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.

Of course some of the loony leftists are that way. Just as some of the loony reactionaries far to the right think the health insurance reform law is unconstitutional. The Pubs are certainly right to do this at the beginning of Congress (and hopefully every day), and the Dems are free to defend their legislation in the courts. For anyone to suggest either side is of the devil is ludicrous and demonstrates just far out of the mainstream they troll.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure. It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning. Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.

It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.

It's meaningless grandstanding.

And "Cons" eat it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The lefties ate it up about the "evil" Bush and Cheney. Both fringe wings are ridiculous.