Posted on 01/19/2011 1:28:49 AM PST by Scanian
As the House prepares for Wednesday's vote to repeal the Democrats' health care law, Republicans say it marks more than a shot at a controversial Obama policy — they argue it is the first step toward making Congress relevant in debates over the Constitution.
Following the House GOP's new rules, Majority Leader Eric Cantor submitted along with the repeal bill a little-noticed but far-reaching statement of constitutional authority that casts the effort in terms of reclaiming congressional prerogatives and the duty of each branch of government to police itself and "ensure that all their actions are constitutional."
While occasionally cloaked in legalese and arcane historical debates, their underlying message is this: The Supreme Court is not the only referee on the field when it comes to determining what's constitutional and what's not.
"The claim of judicial supremacy has been taken to such a point that it now requires Congress, as well as the executive, to push back and reclaim constitutional authority," said Matthew Spalding, a Heritage Foundation constitutional scholar whom Republicans consulted. "The deeper significance of the citation requirement is that Congress is stepping up as an institution and saying that it is an independent constitutional actor."
For much of the last century, schoolchildren have learned that Congress writes the laws, the Supreme Court rules whether they are constitutional, and the president carries them out. But Republicans said that's a modern, and not entirely correct, division of labor.
And it's one reason they wrote their new rule requiring lawmakers to file a statement of constitutional authority along with every bill they sponsor, citing specific constitutional authorities for Congress to take the actions they are proposing.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A mighty hill—nay, even a mountain—to climb.
Yet every journey begins with one step. The Tea Parties were step 1.
Let us not falter, even in the face of liberty-hating enemies like Hussein, his cult-like political party, and the liberal appartchiks in the media.
Big deal, it should have been done along. However, since it wasn’t, by all means reinstitute the procedure.
DEFUND; DEFUND; DEFUND. CUT SPENDING IN HALF.
It must be shown to disgusting clowns like Sheila Jackson Lee that “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” and “necessary and proper” are not legitimate vehicles to advance the welfare state.
Good ,then throw it in his face at election time ,thats how it works, if you dont step up it will never happen,sort of like the excuse for not drilling for oil,Well even if we start drilling now it will be 10 years before we see any Benefit,guess what that was about 20 years ago and they are still using the same excuse
‘The Supreme Court is not the only referee on the field when it comes to determining what’s constitutional and what’s not.”
Andrew Jackson said much the same thing.
“DEFUND; DEFUND; DEFUND. CUT SPENDING IN HALF.”
They won’t do it.
Constitutional restoration!
Finally.
Now it remains to be seen if it can be done.
I think the premise of this article is completely backwards. The Constitution needs to be relevant—Indeed, it needs to take precedence—In all Congressional debates.
I wonder how “constitutionalist” the House pubbies would be if they thought such a bill would actually become law and not just a symbolic gesture destined to be vetoed.
Maybe we’ll find out in 2013.
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Everyone in Congress has SWORN to uphold the Constitution, so citing the authority should be a no-brainer. Shirley they’re not implying their bills are unconstitutional...are they?
Your right it does. So where is dear leaders birth certificate? Why not just stand on the House floor and ask for it? The Constitution needs to be relevant.
“provide for the...general welfare”
I would require anyone citing this clause to prove their point with a non-partisan analysis. For example, does food stamps provide for the GENERAL welfare. It may provide for the welfare of the workers involved with distributing the goodies as well as the recipients...but how about the country as a whole - how about the impact on the debt - the disincentive to work - the incentive to work, but underground, etc?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.