PDA

View Full Version : Congressional Constitutional Contempt




Bradley in DC
10-24-2007, 10:43 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200710/COM20071024d.html

Congressional Constitutional Contempt
By Walter E. Williams
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 24, 2007

Here's the oath of office administered to members of the House and Senate: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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."

A similar oath is sworn to by the president and federal judges.

In each new Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The Act, which has yet to be enacted into law, reads: "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief."

Simply put, if enacted, the Enumerated Powers Act would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions. HR 1359 has 28 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.

When Shadegg introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, he explained that the Constitution gives the federal government great, but limited, powers. Its framers granted Congress, as the central mechanism for protecting liberty, specific rather than general powers. The Constitution gives Congress 18 specific enumerated powers, spelled out mostly in Article 1, Section 8. The framers reinforced that enumeration by the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Just a few of the numerous statements by our founders demonstrate that their vision and the vision of Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act are one and the same. James Madison, in explaining the Constitution in Federalist Paper No. 45, said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Regarding the "general welfare" clause so often used as a justification for bigger government, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." James Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

Congressmen, openly refusing to live up to their oath of office, exhibit their deep contempt for our Constitution. The question I've not been able to answer satisfactorily is whether that contempt simply mirrors a similar contempt held by most of the American people.

I'm sure that if founders such as James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson were campaigning for the 2008 presidential elections, expressing their vision of the federal government's role, today's Americans would run them out of town on a rail. Does that hostility reflect constitutional ignorance whereby the average American thinks the Constitution authorizes Congress to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote or anything that's a good idea? Or, are Americans contemptuous of the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government?

I salute the bravery of Rep. Shadegg and the 28 co-sponsors of the Enumerated Powers Act. They have a monumental struggle. Congress is not alone in its constitutional contempt, but is joined by the White House and particularly the constitutionally derelict U.S. Supreme Court.

(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)

Primbs
10-24-2007, 11:21 AM
We had 28 cosponsors. I didn't know there were that many in Congress.

noxagol
10-24-2007, 11:51 AM
I remember one congressman saying that this bill would prevent them from passing half the stuff they do. I'm wiling to bet it would be even more.

RP4ME
10-24-2007, 12:29 PM
We had 28 cosponsors. I didn't know there were that many in Congress.

sounds like the same 28 that sign on everytime ,...for ex....The Anti-NAU legislation has 28 sponsors as well
Its interesting to see who signs on The freedon Act

mosquitobite
11-26-2007, 07:28 AM
Bump - I got this newsletter this weekend. Chuck Muth is head of www.citizenoutreach.com

__________________________________________________ _________

Making the Constitution Cool Again
By Chuck Muth
November 25, 2007


I remember fondly a bumper sticker from a few years ago which read, "The Constitution is the Contract with America." And as we approach this year's Bill of Rights Day, there are actually some hopeful signs that America's contract is making a comeback.

The patron saint of the modern-day constitutionalists is Barry Goldwater, who famously declared as a U.S. senator that he would not "attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible." Regrettably, few in Congress, then or since, have adopted that standard.

One who has, however, is running for president this year. Indeed, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for his consistency in voting against any piece of legislation which, in his opinion, isn't authorized by the Constitution. And for such fealty to the Constitution, much of the mainstream media has labeled him a "gadfly."

Yet more than 37,000 ordinary American citizens recently contributed an average of just over $100 each to Paul's presidential campaign in the span of just 24 hours raising some $4.2 million - the most successful one-day online fundraising effort for a pre-nomination candidate in the history of the country. Not bad for a constitutional gadfly.

The mainstream media desperately wants you to think this groundswell of support is all due to Paul's opposition to the Iraq war. Not. If you read the posts on almost any blog in which Paul is the topic of discussion, you'll find one supporter after another citing his adherence to the Constitution as their reason for supporting him. The war, if mentioned at all, is usually but a footnote or an aside.

Ron Paul is making the Constitution "cool" again.

Alas, realists recognize that Paul's insurgent campaign is unlikely to actually take him to the White House next November. What will his supporters do then? Will they throw in the towel and fade away? For the sake of the republic, let's hope not.

Instead, they ought to take up the cause of a congressional measure introduced by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, a co-founder of the Goldwater Institute. His "Enumerated Powers Act" stipulates that "Each act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the Constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act."

What a "radical" idea.

Rep. Shadegg has been championing this "vampire bill" - meaning it's never seen the light of day - for years. Shamefully, the measure only has 30 co-sponsors. And Republican Minority Leader John Boehner isn't one of them, despite declaring on his website that he "believes Republicans can earn back the majority in Congress by getting back to their core principles." Neither is Republican Whip Roy Blunt. Or House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam. Or Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, IS a co-sponsor. Go figure.

What principle is more core to being a Republican than the Goldwateresque notion that Congress should only pass legislation which is constitutionally permissible? After all, each and every member of Congress has sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." If honoring one's oath isn't a core Republican principle, what is?

Ron Paul's supporters could dramatically help move this bill forward by championing it the way they've championed Paul's presidential run. And that would truly be something to celebrate this Bill of Rights Day.