Reading the Constitution in the House of Reps?

Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House

When Republicans take over the House next week, they will do something that apparently has never been done before in the chamber's 221-year history:

They will read the Constitution aloud.

And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the lawmaker who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation.

Substantive sincerity or symbolic lip service?
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
:faint:

That is one proposal that has been bounced around here: cite the authority; if you cannot or will not, it gets tossed immediately.

There will be a lot of pessimistic views on it, but only time will tell. I suspect the Old Guard will slack off and not care, but the TEA Party-supported reps should hold firm.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Substantive sincerity or symbolic lip service?

This is step two in marginalizing the TEA party folks. First was the ear mark farce; "This is bad! Boo!" Now, this. Between the two, Boehner and McConnell went about business as usual and signed on to increase spending even more in exchange for the status quo instead of taking on the challenge of writing their own legislation to actually address the core problems when they had the power (and inconvenience of a bunch of new conservatives wanting a say) in a month.

Some would argue that you have to take little steps. I would argue that when the ship is sinking, closing the windows is futile. You get very few chances and little time to do something in government. Ask Obama. You don't waste them on gestures.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'll wait and see. I'm flabbergasted by the fact that laws ever get passed that are clearly unconstitutional. Is someone laying down on the job?

Moreover, I am disgusted by the comments over the last two years by legislators who scoffed at the idea of citing proof of constitutionality for bills, as though it were completely irrelevant. Apparently the commerce clause gives them the powers of a potentate to pass whatever law they choose.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'll wait and see. I'm flabbergasted by the fact that laws ever get passed that are clearly unconstitutional. Is someone laying down on the job?

Moreover, I am disgusted by the comments over the last two years by legislators who scoffed at the idea of citing proof of constitutionality for bills, as though it were completely irrelevant. Apparently the commerce clause gives them the powers of a potentate to pass whatever law they choose.

The first, and last time, the constitution matters to most of our elected leaders is when they take office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

From there, it becomes an obstacle. To be gotten around.
 

philibusters

Active Member

Both? Maybe wishful thinking in addition. For my new year's resolutions I'll come up with some goals. Usually if I come up with five goals a year later I have seen I have met one or two, which were the more realistic ones to start with. Its a new term for the House with new leadership. I bet its easy to be optimistic. Its a lot easier for me to say I am going to do say run 10 miles every night than actually following through with it. And it is no different for Congress. The new leadership probably wants to do things differently, but only time will tell how they act.

They probably have lots of motives for these rules including substantively believing that this will help focus attention on the Constitution, playing to their base who will eat it up, and our maybe hopeful that this will change things in Congress.
 
Last edited:
:faint:

That is one proposal that has been bounced around here: cite the authority; if you cannot or will not, it gets tossed immediately.

There will be a lot of pessimistic views on it, but only time will tell. I suspect the Old Guard will slack off and not care, but the TEA Party-supported reps should hold firm.

Yeah, I tend to think it's more a good thing than a bad one (to the extent it's taken seriously), but I question how it can be at all effective. We can say 'cite the authority', but that doesn't really limit would-be legislative proposals. They just have to add a couple extra sentences declaring that something in the Constitution provides authority (which they sometimes do already when they're worried that Constitutional authority is tenuous - they've gotten smart about that and often include a comprehensive set of Congressional findings in support of the asserted authority). For most practical purposes, that won't be any problem at all. The issue is whether or not the needed authority rightfully exists (or should rightfully exist). As things stand now, the Tax and Spend Clause and the Commerce Clause provide incredibly broad power to Congress, and as threshold manner it can pretend that they provide even more.

Want to prohibit people from growing marijuana in their home (clearly unConstitutional for the federal government to do as an original understanding matter)? Check, Commerce Clause.

Want to prohibit the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school? (clearly unConstitutional for the federal government to do)? Check, Commerce Clause.

Want to compel most everyone to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty? (clearly unConstitutional for the federal government to do)? Check, Commerce Clause.

Want to compel people to eat 3 servings of vegetables a day? Check, Commerce Clause?
 
Last edited:
I'll wait and see. I'm flabbergasted by the fact that laws ever get passed that are clearly unconstitutional. Is someone laying down on the job?

Moreover, I am disgusted by the comments over the last two years by legislators who scoffed at the idea of citing proof of constitutionality for bills, as though it were completely irrelevant. Apparently the commerce clause gives them the powers of a potentate to pass whatever law they choose.

The problem is, for most any given would-be legislation, there are people (usually plenty of them) that don't think it's clearly unConstitutional - even people that think it is clearly Constitutional. And, I mean people on both sides of the ideological divides - so-called Conservatives and so-called Liberals alike seem to think that the federal government is legitimately massively empowered, they just disagree somewhat on which areas it is thusly empowered in.

Further, generally speaking, they've got a long line of court rulings that back them up or can be reasonably read to back them up.
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
I would think that the Commerce Clause will be cited quite often.

We will have to wait and see how the Republicans will interpret it.

I don't think it will help much.
 

Toxick

Splat
Between the two, Boehner and McConnell went about business as usual and signed on to increase spending even more in



Is there anyone else who internally (and sometimes externally) pronounces this name "Boner".... and finds it way more appropriate than "bayner".
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Is there anyone else who internally (and sometimes externally) pronounces this name "Boner".... and finds it way more appropriate than "bayner".

:lol:

That's actually not fair. John and Mitch and most of the others are Republicans first, not conservatives. That means they are about the R, not some quaint principles of limited government and spending.

Is it their fault if they keep telling us they'll give us restraint and never do and we keep buying it? We, conservatives, have simply got to understand; they are Republicans. Not conservatives. I just had a conversation this AM about trying different approaches to get responsibility out of someone you know simply has no interest in taking responsibility even though experience has taught you, time and again, that they are not interested.

It's really that simple. The problem is in wanting something from the GOP they do not want. At least any further than they are required to pretend to want it in order to acquire power. To then do what they want.

:shrug:
 

Lugnut

I'm Rick James #####!

I think it's symbolic lip service at best. There are constitutional "scholars" on both sides and a lot of them are VERY persuasive. The constitutional authority debate would provide an excuse when one side or another wants to delay legislation for any reason though so.... :shrug:

At worst, it opens up the possibility of legislation being subject to approval/interpretation by the judicial branch prior to being passed. Not that the checks and balances have been operating all that well lately as it is.

I dunno, just dont see a positive impact to this.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
This is step two in marginalizing the TEA party folks. First was the ear mark farce; "This is bad! Boo!" Now, this. Between the two, Boehner and McConnell went about business as usual and signed on to increase spending even more in exchange for the status quo instead of taking on the challenge of writing their own legislation to actually address the core problems when they had the power (and inconvenience of a bunch of new conservatives wanting a say) in a month.

Some would argue that you have to take little steps. I would argue that when the ship is sinking, closing the windows is futile. You get very few chances and little time to do something in government. Ask Obama. You don't waste them on gestures.

I was at my daughter's house the other day for Christmas. We were flipping through the channels before realizing the Eagles game had been postponed, when we landed briefly on Communist News Network. My daughter, who's virilantly anti-political, quickly flipped the channel, but not before I heard a woman, in round-table type discussion, utter the following:
"The Republicans need to get the Tea Party under control."

I was like "WTF, over!?" Never did figure out what show it was or who the dingbat was, but the Tea Party needs to get the Republic under control.

Some comments related to the discussion at John Boehners GobGop Plan to Sell Out the Tea Party in 2013. It Will Begin in January 2011.

John Boehner's "GobGop" Plan to Sell Out the Tea Party in 2013. It Will Begin in January 2011.
Gary North

Nov. 6, 2012

First, you must understand that Boehner is a GobGop: a Good Old Boy of the Grand Old Party. The GobGops' goal is to keep the present system funded by the Bigs: Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Banking. If you do not understand this, then you are as naive as a Democrat who thinks Obama speaks for The Common Man.

Boehner shilled for Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs by begging the Republicans to vote for the $750+ billion Big Bank Bailout in 2008. Watch his emotional performance here. "We just have to do it!" No, they didn't. Ron Paul told it straight. He is no GobGop.

Boehner is going to do it again. He has already told us what he intends to do.

The obvious target is Obamacare. The Tea Party voters hate it. They regard it as an affront.

You've probably seen this. It's all over the Web. It's supposedly from Maxine, the cartoon character who speaks for geezerdom.

Let me get this straight . . . . We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan
we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it
but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the heck could possibly go wrong?'

This is all true. Tea Party people know it's all true. They threw the rascals out . . . but left enough of them behind to sell us out.

Boehner told a Fox News interviewer what he plans to do: (1) repeal Obamacare; (2) pass another heath care law. You can see the video here. Here is a direct quote:

"This health care bill will ruin the best health care system in the world, and it will bankrupt our country. We are going to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance."
Big Pharma is not threatened by this. Big Pharma will clean up either way.

If Boehner is politically savvy, he will have the Republicans introduce a repeal bill as soon as he takes over as Speaker of the House. The following will then take place.

1. A straight party vote will pass it.
2. In the Senate, the Democrats will not pass it.
3. Boehner will then begin a two-year campaign:

"The Republican Party is committed to a repeal of Obamacare. In 2012, you will have another opportunity to vote the Democrats out of power in the Senate, and give the Republicans a President who will sign this bill."
He will play to the Tea Party. He will gain their trust. He will throw down the gauntlet on health insurance from day one. He will hammer relentlessly on this for two years.

The goal here is to get the Tea Party voters into his camp. He is a GobGop. But it's obvious that he will score lots of points by doing this.

In 2012, the Republicans will take over the Senate and elect a President. It will repeal Obamacare. Then the Republican GobGops will introduce another huge bill that they promise will cut medical costs.

They will not cut spending. They will not raise taxes. They will preside over a gigantic deficit.

The pork will continue to flow.

The Tea Party people will sense betrayal. Then we will see how committed they are to getting the spending under control . . . in 2015. Too late, I think.

The sell-out is coming. It will be business as usual. The GobGops now control the House. They can posture all they want, knowing the Senate will block their token spending cuts. The GobGops will scream: "If we only controlled the Senate! If we only controlled the White House! Then we could get spending under control!" You know: the way they did under Bush.

It will make great political theater. Punch and Judy will perform a real donnybrook. A good time will be had by all.

The Bigs will get bigger. They always do.

Forward this to friends. Post it on Twitter and Facebook. The troops need to be warned what's coming.
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I think it's bullchit and just another pathetic gesture to lull the 8 or 10 people who actually pay attention to what these folks are actually doing.
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
:lol:

That's actually not fair. John and Mitch and most of the others are Republicans first, not conservatives. That means they are about the R, not some quaint principles of limited government and spending.

Is it their fault if they keep telling us they'll give us restraint and never do and we keep buying it? We, conservatives, have simply got to understand; they are Republicans. Not conservatives. I just had a conversation this AM about trying different approaches to get responsibility out of someone you know simply has no interest in taking responsibility even though experience has taught you, time and again, that they are not interested.

It's really that simple. The problem is in wanting something from the GOP they do not want. At least any further than they are required to pretend to want it in order to acquire power. To then do what they want.

:shrug:

Very convoluted statement, but basically correct.

Also describes about half of the GOP leadership.
 
Supreme Court justice: Justice Antonin Scalia to talk about Constitution to House members - latimes.com

The decision by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to accept an invitation from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the founder of the House's Tea Party Caucus, to speak to incoming House members about the Constitution is drawing fire from some who worry the court is injecting itself into partisan politics.

The meeting "suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who said Scalia had shown "exceedingly poor judgment."

He said the association of Scalia, an outspoken conservative, with the bombastic Bachmann, who once accused then- Sen. Barack Obama
of being "anti-American," could contribute to the high court becoming overly politicized.

I'm not sure how I feel about this and I could probably be convinced either way. My gut instinct is that Supreme Court Justices should try to at least give the appearance that they try to keep above the (political) fray (that appearance seemed to be somewhat important to the Founders). On the other hand, to the extent that they do, who are they kidding?
 
Top