GOP to force all bills to cite the Constitution?

[Matt Collins]

House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution


Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”


GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html#ixzz18RI72Pom

[Bruno]

Excellent!

[Matt Collins]

The GWC and ICC will probably be the most over-written phrases in DC for the next few years.

[Rothbardian Girl]

The GWC and ICC will probably be the most over-written phrases in DC for the next few years.
This, honestly.

The Constitution hasn't stopped some of the most invasive and destructive pieces of legislation in the past, mostly due to repeated twisting of these two clauses... what makes anyone think it will suddenly stop now that this will be required by the GOP? It also amazes me that (most of) the GOP thinks they have any credibility whatsoever in suggesting this... have they completely forgotten about their own role in creating the problems we have today? Maybe the intent is good, but it's very hard to trust most of them.

We'll see. But right now I'm very skeptical.

[low preference guy]

The GWC and ICC will probably be the most over-written phrases in DC for the next few years.

Good. Then voters can be shown that and be asked to support amending the Constitution to repeal the commerce clause.

[Matt Collins]

As Lysnader Spooner once remarked: "The Constitution either gives us the government we have, or it's powerless to prevent it; either way it is unfit to exist".

[CableNewsJunkie]

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

[guitarlifter]

I could see this going either very well or very poorly, depending on how dishonest congressmen want to be. Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question.

[Captain America]

<really!?> Why has this not always been the case. <really!?/> I feel like we've been screwed. We have this Constitution to protect liberty. This should be without saying and I'm thinking thats what the framers also thought. What the hell are we letting them get away with. Come on now.

[malkusm]

Yeah, the GWC and ICC will be vastly overcited, BUT at least they are paying attention to the Constitution and acknowledging its existance. Additionally, this might make challenges of legislation on Constitutional grounds; before, SCOTUS simply could choose some language in the Constitution to fit their needs. If they have to focus on a particular clause, this will further restrict them.

[cswake]

Wouldn't they have to do this section-by-section and line-by-line rather than a single bill? Just a single reference for a bill will not really help.

[awake]

The conveyor belt of legislation must be slowed then stopped. This is the other printing machine that is debasing America. Anything that does this is welcome in my book.

[GunnyFreedom]

This, honestly.

The Constitution hasn't stopped some of the most invasive and destructive pieces of legislation in the past, mostly due to repeated twisting of these two clauses... what makes anyone think it will suddenly stop now that this will be required by the GOP? It also amazes me that (most of) the GOP thinks they have any credibility whatsoever in suggesting this... have they completely forgotten about their own role in creating the problems we have today? Maybe the intent is good, but it's very hard to trust most of them.

We'll see. But right now I'm very skeptical.


Good. Then voters can be shown that and be asked to support amending the Constitution to repeal the commerce clause.

That.

This is a great thing. Right off the bat it will do little to stem the tide of nonsense legislation, but exposure is a key element toward affecting reform.

Now, if this goes into effect and stays in effect, instead of having to educate the voters on the entire Constitution, our work gets a whole lot easier in that we will be able to focus on debunking the modern interpretation of two minor clauses to demonstrate the inappropriate behavior of Congress.

"Why in the world does 95% of all legislation in Congress rely on two minor non-enumerated and mostly incidental clauses in the US Constitution?"

That question will have a lot more moment in light of these new rules than it does now. It will make our job of awakening a sleeping population much easier. So I am very glad to see this.

[Thomas]

this is a good development

[pcosmar]

this is a good development

I can't wait to see the linguistic gymnastics.
;)

[RideTheDirt]

i can't wait to see the linguistic gymnastics.
;)

+1776 :d

[Fox McCloud]

The GWC and ICC will probably be the most over-written phrases in DC for the next few years.

yup...this bill could be a huge detriment to liberty lovers and strict Constitutionalist. The current interpretation of both of those phrases is, at the very best, incredibly broad--if it ends up being repeatedly used, as justification, for bills that are non really Constitutional (within the strict definition), this could cement, in people's minds, forever (or at the very least a very long time) that "X", "Y", and "Z" are "Constitutional" merely because they cite two horrendously misinterpreted sections of the Constitution.

[Matt Collins]

I don't think it'll make a dime's worth of difference ever. I think federal restraint is going to HAVE to come from the State legislatures via nullification in tandem with interposition.

[SirBlend12]

While the principle of the idea is good, the actual practice will probably do little to stop the BS that Congress regularly pulls, mostly because of ICC and GWC (just echoing what seems to be the most common probability because, well, it seems likely that this would happen). However, I'm willing to admit that it might not be the worst idea and that it MAY do SOMETHING to stop the Chaongress from their shenanigans.

[doodle]

GOP supports Patriot Act still?

[Stary Hickory]

GOP supports Patriot Act still?

Not like they used too, many have expressed buyers remorse, saying that did not read it or fully understand it. It would be interesting to see those who do support i t ,amongst the GOP, find the constitutionality in that one.

Specifically exactly which of the enumerated powers in Constitution gives the US government the power to do the things the patriot act allows for. This is great that the GOP wants to make sure everything is now kosher with the US Constitution, however they had better also take a look at legislation that THEY have passed as well.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not like they used too, many have expressed buyers remorse, saying that did not read it or fully understand it. It would be interesting to see those who do support i t ,amongst the GOP, find the constitutionality in that one.

Specifically exactly which of the enumerated powers in Constitution gives the US government the power to do the things the patriot act allows for. This is great that the GOP wants to make sure everything is now kosher with the US Constitution, however they had better also take a look at legislation that THEY have passed as well.

We had a person running for Congress as a Tea Partier who claimed to be a hard-core Constitutionalist since they knew that's what the voters really wanted to hear. They were asked several times about whether they would support the PATRIOT Act, and they replied that not only did they support it but it needed to be made stronger.

This same person would go on and on about Constitution this and Constitution that, but of course whenever it came down to specifics the Constitution of course went out the window.

/intentionally cryptic as to person's identity.

[Theocrat]

House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution


Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”


GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html#ixzz18RI72Pom







It's about time.

[Matt Collins]

It's about time.
I personally think it's a waste of time.

[BarryDonegan]

This is a great turn of events. Although legislators may still put out unConstitutional legislation, and they may attempt to cite some absurd reasoning for thus, at least now they will have to come up with some type of Constitutional argument or think about it when submitting the legislation.

[johnrocks]

All that will be stated is General Welfare or Common Defense and 99.999% will still sail through. I love supporting the Constitution...as I define it and I'm sure politicians like John Boehner and Obama feel the same way.

[AxisMundi]

House GOP: Bills will have to cite Constitution


Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”


GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46565.html#ixzz18RI72Pom







This would be a good idea, IF the GOP had ever bothered to check their OWN legislation against the Constitution.

Got Other Priorities.

Nothing but a minority party fluster to try and get back into the good graces of the Moderates.

And we aint buyin' it.

[AxisMundi]

It's about time.

Do you realize that if Congress did this in the 1950's, our Motto and Pledge would have remained in their original states, and not been replaced with the current examples?

[GunnyFreedom]

Educating the electorate about two phrases is a lot easier than trying to teach them the whole Constitution. We are either in the business of electoral politics or we are not.

[speciallyblend]

useless babble from the gop,like they follow it!!

[Pauls' Revere]

Can we please make this a constitutional amendment?

[Captain America]

Can we please make this a constitutional amendment?

A Enumerated Powers Amendment?

Each proposed law must cite which Enumerated Power(s) gives the authority to make proposed new law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

[kahless]

Now if only they say they will go back and review all passed bills, like Newt Gingrich's communist "welfare reform act". Like allot things the military industrial complex would never allow their puppets to do that since they make way too much money off of providing social welfare systems for the states.

[speciallyblend]

just stuff the gop says to keep you eating out of their hands!!

[sailingaway]

They'll just all say 'commerce clause'. It doesn't advance the ball.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Now if only they say they will go back and review all passed bills, like Newt Gingrich's communist "welfare reform act". Like allot things the military industrial complex would never allow their puppets to do that since they make way too much money off of providing social welfare systems for the states.

I completely agree with review and repeal of past laws based on Constitutional grounds. HOWEVER, going after Social Security, Unemployment or Welfare is political suicide for any politician, especially in a down economy.

Social Security is owed to people - they paid into it. The SSA administration has sent out letters saying that by I forget what year, there would only be enough money in the fund to pay out 76% or so of owed benefits and advising people to make other plans for their retirement for what they can't pay. They have also raised the retirement age. The final part of the puzzle is demographics, as the baby boomers die out, there are fewer in the pool receiving payments and more paying in. It could either be saved or phased out.

Unemployment is something paid into and are owed. It's supposed to be limited, not eternally extended.

Welfare was already limited as to how long you could receive it everywhere but in DC - th Welfare city got a pass on that one.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

That.

This is a great thing. Right off the bat it will do little to stem the tide of nonsense legislation, but exposure is a key element toward affecting reform.

Now, if this goes into effect and stays in effect, instead of having to educate the voters on the entire Constitution, our work gets a whole lot easier in that we will be able to focus on debunking the modern interpretation of two minor clauses to demonstrate the inappropriate behavior of Congress.

"Why in the world does 95% of all legislation in Congress rely on two minor non-enumerated and mostly incidental clauses in the US Constitution?"

That question will have a lot more moment in light of these new rules than it does now. It will make our job of awakening a sleeping population much easier. So I am very glad to see this.

+rep

I think one of the best ways to educate voters about this is to make those two things requirements, platform wise for anyone to be considered a liberty candidate and tell the public, via a generic platform what to look for in a liberty candidate.

Most people are oblivious about their medical, banking, cc etc records going to the government now as well as feds being able to right their own warrants indefinite detention, wholesale wiretapping, etc. They get pissed off when they find out. We need to educate about these points and then let them know it's all because of the doublespeak "patriot act"(sic) which should be renamed the tyranny act.

hmm... maybe we aught to start a drive to rename that act - truth in advertizing, you know...

-t

[Matt Collins]

just stuff the gop says to keep you eating out of their hands!!


This is a waste of time designed to do nothing more than placate or pacify those who are too ignorant to know any better. Why? Because in almost all cases they will default to cite either the:

- Interstate Commerce Clause
- General Welfare Clause
- Necessary and Proper Clause
- Equal Protection Clause



Until the courts (and/or the States) begin to reject this, Congress isn't going to change. This action is like moving 1 inch forward when the actual destination is over a mile away.; essentially negligible and potentially even harmful

[Arion45]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner

[GunnyFreedom]

+rep

I think one of the best ways to educate voters about this is to make those two things requirements, platform wise for anyone to be considered a liberty candidate and tell the public, via a generic platform what to look for in a liberty candidate.

Most people are oblivious about their medical, banking, cc etc records going to the government now as well as feds being able to right their own warrants indefinite detention, wholesale wiretapping, etc. They get pissed off when they find out. We need to educate about these points and then let them know it's all because of the doublespeak "patriot act"(sic) which should be renamed the tyranny act.

hmm... maybe we aught to start a drive to rename that act - truth in advertizing, you know...

-t


RIGHT THERE -- you can then build Party platforms around the simple interpretations of two or three minor clauses of the US Constitution, and then move whole bodies of people around through time via resolutions and platform amendments. That puts the enforcement in the right place: the electorate, and it makes our job what to teach them 100x easier.

Proposed to the NCGOP Platform amendment:

"The Republican Party of North Carolina asserts that our primary and dominant goal is to affect the strict and equal enforcement of the United States and the North Carolina Constitutions into State and Federal Law, in accord with Republican Party Co-Founder Frederick Douglass."

[jacque]

RIGHT THERE -- you can then build Party platforms around the simple interpretations of two or three minor clauses of the US Constitution, and then move whole bodies of people around through time via resolutions and platform amendments. That puts the enforcement in the right place: the electorate, and it makes our job what to teach them 100x easier.

Proposed to the NCGOP Platform amendment:

"The Republican Party of North Carolina asserts that our primary and dominant goal is to affect the strict and equal enforcement of the United States and the North Carolina Constitutions into State and Federal Law, in accord with Republican Party Co-Founder Frederick Douglass."

We need to get this to the platform committee early before the June GOP convention. If we send it to the platform committee and it does not make it on the agenda, we can add it at the convention.