Citing Constitutional Authority

[audtatious]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html

So, House Repubs want to have a citing for each bill to show how it is Constitutional. While this does relatively nothing it does allow more transparency of the "what's and why's" lawmakers are thinking when introducing new legislation.

Thoughts?

[R/T Hemi]

Typically, when someone referrers to the concept of Constitutional Law, they aren't referring to the Constitution (as it is written) itself. They are referring to the long list of cases decided by the SCOTUS that define the meaning of the words and phrases written therein.

At best, a new bill could only be examined by legislative counsel to determine whether it patently violates the Constitution. Keep in mind, that the vast majority of Constitutional challenges to a law are not on the law itself, but on the application of that law. How in the hell counsel could ever determine the wide range of applications a new law would receive as well as forming an opinion on each of them is beyond belief.

Good idea, totally impossible to implement.

[bigbadberry3]

How many times is the word "pork" mentioned in the constitution?

[R/T Hemi]

Twice, in the 28th amendment. Why do you ask?

[audtatious]

Good idea, totally impossible to implement.

Impossible to implement a requirement to specify Constitutionality of the bill itself? While it won't necessarily stop anything it would be good to know why people think their bill is Constitutional. Of course, they will simply use the Commerce clause as reasoning for everything, but still......

[audtatious]

Twice, in the 28th amendment. Why do you ask?

Is that the one that gives the Gov the right to ignore the prior 27 Amendments?

[HashiriyaS14]

it would be good to know why people THINK their bill is Constitutional.

^^
THIS.


It's not going to get anyone anywhere, because the only authority that can actually vet constitutionality is the Supreme Court, and they certainly aren't going to offer an opinion on every bill, but I think for the benefit of accountability, it would be nice to see why our reps think a given bill has constitutional grounding.

Also, for the sake of lulz, I think it will get a lot of people in trouble when they display their ignorance of how the constitution is interpreted through modern jurisprudence.

It will require reps to actually research legal precedent and constitutional interpretation before they propose something, and if they don't, they'll get asked why they didn't, which is good. It will embarrass raving extremist lunatics on both sides of the aisle.


I APPROVE THIS MEASURE, LET IT BE LAW

[audtatious]

Yes, it would not stop anything but it would give great insight as to what a politician is thinking and his true agenda. I do hope the new Congress will be as transparent as the prior Congress stated it would be (before they wanted bills passed so you could find out what was in them). This slinking around and hiding crap behind closed doors, unless strictly security oriented, is a crock of crap.

[stebo0728]

You guys are forgetting one thing ... the reps dont even write these bills, their aids do, and the reps are given their opinion by the aids, these same people will paint up some pretty IB style arguments about constitutionality, and the day will go on unaffected

[audtatious]

So, what you are saying is that all reps have aids?

[stebo0728]

I dont know, is a trip to Ghana mandatory for service?

[audtatious]

Dunno, but they work in DC with others who come from San Fran and surrounding areas

[stebo0728]

So .... the left is starting to show their true animosity toward the constitution. The new House is planning to read the entire constitution on the floor before starting out. What could possibly be bad about this? But then for the left, the constitution is just a road block against the complete government superiority they esteem. Read this toolbag from the New York Times......some how reading the constitution has become RACIST?!?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/opini ... ef=opinion

[audtatious]

Constitution is just a roadblock to Gov control over our lives. Remember, it's a living document and should not be taken at face value.....

[stebo0728]

As old Beyhar says, people are getting too caught up with this constitution thing

[audtatious]

Only the people who believe in what the US stood for. Lots of people today could care less and see the Gov as the ones responsible for providing for them. If the Constitution gets trampled, then so be it.

[HashiriyaS14]

So, what you are saying is that all reps have aids?

[audtatious]

[96Qowner]

You guys are forgetting one thing ... the reps dont even write these bills, their aids do, and the reps are given their opinion by the aids, these same people will paint up some pretty IB style arguments about constitutionality, and the day will go on unaffected

It's actually even worse. Lobbyists usually write the actual language and present it to aides to review, edit and summarize for the legislators who vote. The legislators rarely have a clue about what's in the bill. They just know what people tell them - big surprise (eyeroll) when little inconvenient oddities turn up later.

Of course, there are some legislators, not many, who are fluent in legislative language and can write or review bills themselves.

Let the wild insinuations and posturing begin! Toss Gramma in the street, let poor people get all diseased and costly, let babies die, etc. The world simply can't continue unless the government spends most of our money for us. Government has proven to be so much wiser than the citizens, doncha know. Every blithering idiot knows that.

[audtatious]

I want no responsibility.....Let the Gov tell me how to do things.

[IBCoupe]

Typically, when someone referrers to the concept of Constitutional Law, they aren't referring to the Constitution (as it is written) itself. They are referring to the long list of cases decided by the SCOTUS that define the meaning of the words and phrases written therein.

At best, a new bill could only be examined by legislative counsel to determine whether it patently violates the Constitution. Keep in mind, that the vast majority of Constitutional challenges to a law are not on the law itself, but on the application of that law. How in the hell counsel could ever determine the wide range of applications a new law would receive as well as forming an opinion on each of them is beyond belief.

Good idea, totally impossible to implement.

This. Though I suppose they could cite the completely ambiguous portions of the Constitution (most of it) that led to the SCOTUS opinions further defining them.

[IBCoupe]

What could possibly be bad about this?

The fact that measures that are only symbolic are only useless. The fact that it suggests that, up until now, we've been reading the Constitution incorrectly or not at all. The implication that the Tea Party freshmen who are proposing this have the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, which, as I wrote above, thrives on its ambiguity.

This is meant to be divisive without actually accomplishing a damned thing. Find me one Congressman who hasn't read the Constitution, and I'll condemn them. But don't pull this crap and pretend that it means anything.

[stebo0728]

Well....I totally get the "if its divisive" angle....but Ive formed this opinion over the past week, stemming from the Congressional reading of the Constitution. I loved it, whether they meant it as a circus stunt or not, I dont care, I loved it. And I enjoyed the way they strategically chose people to read certain parts. Yes some parts were skipped, not sure why or whatever, but oh well. I just think its like this: The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, is the Bible of the Congress. They should know it, they should consult it, and should in no way avoid it. Maybe it should be read once at the beginning of each session, I dont know, but I think re-integrating the constitution into the comings and goings of congress CANT be a bad thing, regardless of whether its a stunt or for serious reasons. Perhaps a junior congressman benefitted from the reading even if it was a stunt.

[IBCoupe]

They turned two pages at once. Or at least that's the cover. The part they missed was the part that makes Arizona's illegal immigration law unconstitutional.

And I stand by: find me a Congressman who has never read the Constitution, and I'll condemn them for their failure. But don't waste my time with stunts. You say "reintegrating" as if it was once done. This was the first time anything like this had been attempted since the Country was formed. This is no reintegration. This isn't getting back to our foundation. This is a stunt, and it will be forgotten next week because it's a stunt. It was a waste of time. Had it been anything else, they'd have noticed that they missed two pages of text.

And it's not like the Bible. The Bible gives you a supposedly absolute set of morals spelled out in allegory. The Constitution dictates how our government works. Those are very different purposes, and it's important that we don't confuse them. People have been killed with the Bible as the justification, and that shouldn't ever be the case with the Constitution.

[szh]

The Constitution dictates how our government works.

Yes! Exactly! And it is high time that our Senators and Congressmen/women (on both sides of the table) were reminded (a) of the facts of government, (b) what is expected of them to do their job and (b) who they work for.

New employees should always receive up-front training so they don't screw up.

Ultimately, it is the people who they serve.

Z

[srellim234]

I watch you guys talk about the subject and one thought of mine has remained constant. The entire reading, complete or not, was an absolute waste of time. I doubt there was a single lawmaker who listened to it and actually paid any attention to what was being read. I'll bet every one of them went into it with the attitude that they already knew the subject matter and the reading only applied to the other guy, not themselves. Just like the voters who keep voting for incumbent candidates or candidates from the two incumbent parties. They always want the other ones to change but not their own.

[IBCoupe]

The Constitution dictates how our government works.

Yes! Exactly! And it is high time that our Senators and Congressmen/women (on both sides of the table) were reminded (a) of the facts of government, (b) what is expected of them to do their job and (b) who they work for.

New employees should always receive up-front training so they don't screw up.

Ultimately, it is the people who they serve.

Z

Oh, dear God, if any of the new people hadn't read the Constitution, I'd be perfectly happy to go across country and campaign against them. It's not necessary or prudent for Congress to be reading the Constitution aloud at the start of its term. It's necessary and prudent for each Congressman to do it, but they obviously didn't care or they wouldn't have (probably accidentally) skipped Article 4 Section 4.

It's an empty gesture to score political points. That mocks the Constitution, and that's what pisses me off.

[szh]

It's an empty gesture to score political points. That mocks the Constitution, and that's what pisses me off.

Nah! It is no worse than singing the anthem before sports games ... makes people remember the words properly!

Z

[IBCoupe]

And if this were some long-standing tradition that I was challenging, that argument might make sense. But it's not; this is people, at best, trying to turn an empty gesture into a tradition. Doesn't make it any less empty.

[szh]

And if this were some long-standing tradition that I was challenging, that argument might make sense. But it's not; this is people, at best, trying to turn an empty gesture into a tradition. Doesn't make it any less empty.

Then consider it a start of a new tradition.

And one that is long overdue.

Z