Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Yes, of course.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

Oh I wouldn't say 'Upset.' Realistic about the fact that it's meaningless grandstanding is more like it.

 

[rdean]

I just saw on the news that rule has been in place since 1999 and they even gave the number. Too bad I didn't write it down.

 

[Jackson]

Too bad they can't go back and review older laws and check them for their constitutionality. (I.E>..Health care law...)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too bad they can't go back and review older laws and check them for their constitutionality. (I.E>..Health care law...)

The law suits are the remedy.

 

[EriktheRed]

Feh...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:

Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional. When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...

1) how will they justify their constitutionality?

2) when they do, will that confirm to all you 'constitutional' conservatives, that they are right,

and you are wrong?

Or, on the other hand, will that simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this whole exercise is a meaningless, comical gesture of empty symbolism and grandstanding...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:

Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional. When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...

1) how will they justify their constitutionality?

They cannot - nor can anyone else.
But then, you also cannot undo 80 years of entitlements in one year..

 

[Bern80]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:

Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional. When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...

1) how will they justify their constitutionality?

2) when they do, will that confirm to all you 'constitutional' conservatives, that they are right,

and you are wrong?

Or, on the other hand, will that simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this whole exercise is a meaningless, comical gesture of empty symbolism and grandstanding...

Well I think that's what the, shall we say....principled members of the right are afraid of. I am afraid it's not a question of if, simply when, the republicans will be shown for hypocrites for insisting on this rule. The day will come when they to would rather not have to defer to the constitution or maybe has (Patriot Act).

I certainly think it's a good idea that politicians be required to consider the constitutionality of the laws they pass. Personally I don't think it gets so much as a passing thought now.

 

[Inception]

all we are going to see is a lot of reference to the common welfare clause. since it wont matter either way if the house wants to vote on if a bill is constitutional, nothing the democrats propose will ever reach the floor since the GOP is in control.

But it will be interesting to see when this rule comes back to bite the GOP in the ass, since there are many things that they currently fund & support that are not in the constitution. ie many of the US departement (education, energy, homeland security, the air force) it also states nowhere in the constitution that the federal government should provide law makers with a pension or health care. so lets strip those things away from congress as well and make them pay for it out of their own pocket.

 

[Vanquish]

I hope that this law really educates a lot of people...and that's on both sides of the aisle.

The problem isn't with requiring this law...it's with enforcing this law.

Here's why: let's say you pass this law (or it already exists). people can write anything the want in this section. who is going to "check to see that it's right?"

wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!! The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!

You can't do a "quick check to see if a law is constitutional"...because that's the job of the courts!

Whose version or interpretation of the constitution are you going to use, numbnuts?

Is the recent push to "only fund what's IN the Constitution" going to give way to the ACTUALITY that there are constitutional doctrines that arose through valid caselaw? Are these wingnuts going to realize that the President was given the power to create executive agencies that ARENT IN the damn document?

This "we own the Constitutution and you hate it" bullshit has got to stop. No one group owns it...we all do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!! The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!

Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 Shooter, give us links, if you can, for what the Founders thought about judicial review in the 1780s. Start with the state constitutions.

 

[Inception]

wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!! The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!

Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.

The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.

The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73-93) was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary. Article III, section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court," and such inferior courts as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision, though, for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide

so actually yes the constitution was amended to allow for Judicial Reveiw in 1789, this was then confirmed in 1801 when the power was first excised.

Article III Section 2 states:

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

you do realize that without Judicial review, there would be no governing body to determine if a law is constitutional or not?

 

[Vanquish]

Exactly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!! The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!

Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.

The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.

I know. That's my point.
Judicial review did not exist until the court decided it had the power to decide it had the power of Judicial review. It took the power for itself by fiat.

Article III Section 2 states:
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,

Yes....
Where in that is the power granted to the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? If that power is there, why/how did it not exist until the court gave it to itself in Marbury, as -you- said?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:

Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional. When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...

1) how will they justify their constitutionality?

2) when they do, will that confirm to all you 'constitutional' conservatives, that they are right,

and you are wrong?

Or, on the other hand, will that simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this whole exercise is a meaningless, comical gesture of empty symbolism and grandstanding...

Or it will prove that 80 years of wrong direction can't be fixed in one year or even a dozen. It will take decades of concerted effort to "unfuck" a government that has been completely screwed for nearly a century.

Case in point, if tomorrow the Supreme Court overturned Wickard v. Filburn creating a liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the underlying basis for the supposed constitutionality of more than 50% of the government would be wiped away in a stroke. All of those agencies would have to dissolve. Imagine the disruption that would create.

Nope, this is hard long term work if you want to keept things working at the same time.

 

[American Horse]

I noticed today, watching on C-Span that members from both parties were reading from the constitution without objection.

Jesse Jackson Junior made a complaint that the 3/5ths person originally in the constitution was not read, only the amended constitution which omits it.

Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed.

The true meaning or purpose of the 3/5ths clause was useful in the abolition of slavery; a concept that needs to be taught, and not ducked.
But to be deflected in a reading in the congress to take that up would've been bad form. It should however be taken up in after hours debate, to educate the public, and and the sooner the better.

Should Congress Have Read the WHOLE Constitution? Jesse Jackson, Jr. Makes the Case

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 Shooter, judicial review existed in 9 of 13 state constitutions. The Founders of the time generally spoke well of the doctrine. It has served the country well. You have to address the issue, which is not its constitutionality.

 

[Inception]

Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.

The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.

I know. That's my point.
Judicial review did not exist until the court decided it had the power to decide it had the power of Judicial review. It took the power for itself by fiat.

Article III Section 2 states:
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,

Yes....
Where in that is the power granted to the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? If that power is there, why/how did it not exist until the court gave it to itself in Marbury, as -you- said?

actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.