Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House (never done before)
Washington Post ^ | 12/29/10 | Philip Rucker and Krissah Thompson

Posted on 12/29/2010 2:44:05 PM PST by Libloather

Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House
By Philip Rucker and Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 29, 2010; 4:53 PM

When Republicans take over next week, they will do something that apparently has never been done before in the 221-year history of the House of Representatives.

They will read the Constitution aloud.

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

Call it the tea party-ization of Congress.

"It appears that the Republicans have been listening," said Jeff Luecke, a sales supervisor and tea party organizer in Dubuque, Iowa. "We're so far away from our founding principles that, absolutely, this is the very, very tip of the iceberg. We need to talk about and learn about the Constitution daily."

**SNIP**

The reading of the Constitution will occur Jan. 6, one day after the swearing in of Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio). The 4,543-word document, including all 27 amendments, could be read aloud in just 30 minutes.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: 112th; 112thgop; boehner; congress; constitution; gop; house; obama; ohio; palin; rules; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-97 last
To: Paladin2

There should be an exam. Anyone who fails should be forced to resign.


51 posted on 12/29/2010 4:00:55 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

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

I believe the oath of office contains this already - no one there is worth their word.


52 posted on 12/29/2010 4:03:24 PM PST by edcoil ("The only winning move is not to play")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

It’s a start and a good one. I’d like to see the Declaration included. It would highlight who our domestic enemies are.


53 posted on 12/29/2010 4:05:34 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dearolddad

Oh don’t worry. I am above all else cynical when it comes to politics. I am positively convinced that a minimum of 90% of these people don’t give a damn about the Country but are in it for the connections, power, and to line their pockets. Period. All the rest is talk and BS.


54 posted on 12/29/2010 4:10:29 PM PST by vpintheak (Democrats: Robbing humans of their dignity 1 law at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

“”A worthy idea. Lets hope and pray that they follow through.””

Keep your fingers limbered up for the phones and computer keyboard....Let’s not let them forget we are STILL watching!


55 posted on 12/29/2010 4:15:20 PM PST by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Typical_Whitey

***We should make note of how many liberals are not there or walk out during the reading it will make great campaign commercials.***

Good thought!


56 posted on 12/29/2010 4:16:49 PM PST by kitkat ( Obama: Hype and Chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I am reminded of the Star Trek episode: "The Omega Glory"

YouTube: Star Trek [2x23] The Omega Glory (Part 5 of 5)

57 posted on 12/29/2010 4:17:46 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

So, which bursts into flame first? The Constitution or the House Chamber?


58 posted on 12/29/2010 4:23:25 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
The Constitutional Authority that will be cited in the vast majority of the Bills will be the “Commerce Clause”, which provides the justification for everything from condoms to toilet paper.....

If the new rule forces them to at least discuss publicly the rationale for these commerce clause abuses it will be valuable. Same for the general welfare clause. Neither of them will stand up to 2 minutes of logical argument but that is 2 minutes more than either has had to withstand since they became the constitutional rubber stamps during the Roosevelt administration.

59 posted on 12/29/2010 4:24:42 PM PST by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
"discuss publicly the rationale for these commerce clause abuses"

Correct in that the Roosevelt Regime began the socialism agenda implementation. We now have Courts packed with activist Judges who consistently will NOT render a verdict that is anti-Elitist. This includes the USSC, which now has 2 more BLATANT socialists (Sotomayor and Kagan), and there is nowhere We The People can turn for relief, except via a do-over.

60 posted on 12/29/2010 4:30:00 PM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

I agree with you. I don’t read them either, but plenty of seniors do.

My point is we’re up against people who get paid to propagandize for a living.

We have to know our enemy. They’re after the family, men, women, children, our Constitution, our military, our country and our way of life they are determined and insatiable.

If you don’t maintain a regular email list, don’t work campaigns or aren’t getting trained in basic politics, PR or media relations: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/training/

...then you’re falling behind. We need to stay in campaign mode and win, win, win. There isn’t any other option.


61 posted on 12/29/2010 4:33:48 PM PST by 1010RD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...
When Republicans take over next week, they will do something that apparently has never been done before in the 221-year history of the House of Representatives. They will read the Constitution aloud. And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the legislator who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed law.
Thanks justiceseeker93. The whole Congress has been listening -- "Taxed Enough Already" is what shook up the political life of this country, and the Bush tax cuts were extended in entire.


62 posted on 12/29/2010 4:41:14 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: taxtruth

FDR? Wilson!


63 posted on 12/29/2010 4:52:15 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rush speaks! I hear, I obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I fully support this. However. I will believe it when I see it.


64 posted on 12/29/2010 5:14:54 PM PST by txnuke (Obama votes "PRES__ENT" because he has no ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; Talisker
And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the legislator who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed law.

Or wave a weak hand at the "health and welfare clause" or the "interstate commerce clause". They have been using those two to seize almost unlimited power.

65 posted on 12/29/2010 5:19:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devolve; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; dixiechick2000; MeekOneGOP; Libloather
[They will read the Constitution aloud.

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

Sounds good. If law were followed, it would then make those writing and signing it responsible for knowing they broke the law.

I would think many would then be ‘brushing up’ on reading the Constitution.

66 posted on 12/29/2010 5:20:01 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut

LOL..............I want them to read Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


67 posted on 12/29/2010 5:23:17 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Instead of making them simply make a statement, make them write a defense of each portion of the law based on the intent of the people who wrote and ratified it.


68 posted on 12/29/2010 5:25:28 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

.

C-SPAN may start to be very embarrassing for democrats in the House

“It must be authorized by the US Constitution to be considered as a bill?

What is this - some kind of a crazy right-wing litmus test?”

.


69 posted on 12/29/2010 5:25:29 PM PST by devolve (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wagya for only $100 pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
The same demographic that votes - Seniors.

Seniors voted for McCain, not Obama.

70 posted on 12/29/2010 5:28:50 PM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: devolve

I don’t know, you are the one who studied Political Science. I just read and it sounded good to me.


71 posted on 12/29/2010 5:37:08 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I like.


72 posted on 12/29/2010 5:39:15 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals (liberals) because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

.

Oh - It’s a great idea

Anyone that criticizes it is in for big trouble

They should pull SCROTUS into the House and read it to them too!

.


73 posted on 12/29/2010 5:40:58 PM PST by devolve (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wagya for only $100 pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
I believe all of them would be obliged to repeal an unconstitutional law, e.g.:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Isn't citing their obligation to repeal sufficient? It's part of the constitution.
74 posted on 12/29/2010 5:42:35 PM PST by MV=PY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: devolve
Maybe they could have Obama and his teleprompter stand there while they read it, lol.
75 posted on 12/29/2010 5:48:44 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

.

Yup

He would be out playing golf or basketball

Or golfball

Or bolf

.


76 posted on 12/29/2010 5:54:47 PM PST by devolve (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wagya for only $100 pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Lol


77 posted on 12/29/2010 6:01:55 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Strikes me as symbolic, but sometimes symbols remind people of what they should do. We shall see...


78 posted on 12/29/2010 6:02:27 PM PST by GarthVader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

These are fine things to do, but ultimately it is more important that the Congress actually follow the Constitution. Beyond this, we need to redress the underlying judicial distortions of the Constitution which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional powers. The only sure way to achieve this is to amend the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government’s ability to expand to such a ridiculous size and power.

However, this will not work as long as Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. Some have proposed calling an Article V convention, but that would be uncontrolled and dominated by politicians and law professors. The solution is an “amendment amendment” which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. In this way, grassroots constitutionalists could enact amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure in parallel with legislative efforts which we hope will finally begin to comply with the Constitution. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com for more specifics on this proposal.


79 posted on 12/29/2010 6:02:31 PM PST by Timely Renewed (This is just show unless we restore the US Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; June K.
The reading of the Constitution will occur Jan. 6

My birthday :) YAY!

80 posted on 12/29/2010 6:23:38 PM PST by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

It’s about time. Now, lets see if any of them has to balls to walk the talk.

We are watching.


81 posted on 12/29/2010 6:25:44 PM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

82 posted on 12/29/2010 6:36:27 PM PST by devolve (. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wagya for only $100 pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SeeSac

Yes, in 2008. So if you wanted to depress and/or alter that vote would you take the time to scare that demographic about conservative attempts to return medicine to liberty and free markets?

My point is the progressives are and have been on the march. We’d better get out ahead of them. We need a majority in the Senate, but that happens not on a national level, but a state level.

We need to hold and strengthen our majority in Congress. That’s on the local level. It’s a broad front, but 300,000 informed, trained and active liberty loving FReepers can do a lot.

I wasn’t playing generational politics, but simply pointing out some of the obscure array against us - we need to be inside their OODA - faster, clearer, harder - Obama must go, the Senate must be won and we must hold the House - and, in the long run 2 out of 3 of those for a generation or two if we’re to regain our country.


83 posted on 12/29/2010 6:42:03 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Tentative excitment ping. Let’s pray these people keep their promises and stop the maddness.


84 posted on 12/29/2010 6:47:09 PM PST by Lucky2 (Impeach the bastard and save the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

As soon as the (R)s find something that they want badly enough that unfortunately doesn’t quite squeak through the Constitutional hole in the needle, they’ll forget all about these new “rules”.


85 posted on 12/29/2010 7:50:11 PM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Warning: Sarcasm/humor is always engaged. Failure to recognize this may lead to misunderstandings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Nice idea, but ...

Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause

is all we'll see

86 posted on 12/29/2010 7:57:08 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Yes, exactly. Moaning because everything isn’t happening all at once, and/or predicting defeat, is not how wars are won.


87 posted on 12/29/2010 8:00:25 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

I am deeply saddened by that clip. I’ve always loved that episode and the ending. I loved it than as now.

I’m saddened that no modern show could ever express such patriotism in America and therefore, reminded once again how far we have fallen from being a moral, informed nation.

Not your fault. Thanks for a great reminder of the America I once knew. At least I got to live in it. I grieve for the kids born in 2050. They will never know even the over-regulated freedom I knew in the 20th century.


88 posted on 12/29/2010 8:02:57 PM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (We be Fooked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Yes, exactly. Moaning because everything isn’t happening all at once, and/or predicting defeat, is not how wars are won.

I'm telling you...even at FR, you've got to be careful about choosing your squad-mates. Given the commentary around here, I'd have to guess that at least a quarter would turn tail and run if the SHTF.

I've also found that those who are active in local politics or the Tea Parties, complain the least. I guess they're too busy getting the job done to whine.

89 posted on 12/29/2010 8:14:43 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

SOUNDS WONDERFUL.

Maybe it’s because the GOP globalist stooges know it’s too late to make a huge difference.

Still . . . God has done more with smaller beginnings. We can pray it has a big impact for good.


90 posted on 12/29/2010 8:18:44 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY
What you are quoting is the presidential oath, which is in the Constitution itself. But the oath taken by House members, though somewhat similar in terms of supporting the Constitution, is not in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any specific authority given for Congress to repeal, although it's been done quite a number of times throughout American history, presumably on the assumption that the legislation being repealed concerned matters within the scope of Congess' constitutional power, and therefore the repeal was also within that scope of power.

But (de facto) repeals of earlier legislation deemed to be unconstitutional have traditionally been done through court decisions, not through Congress. So there could be a problem citing a particular clause in the Constitution as the basis for repealing, say, ObamaCare, because ObamaCare itself cannot be supported on any Constitutional basis. There's the dilemma.

91 posted on 12/29/2010 9:14:50 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Is this for real? We can pray it’s so but in this day and time so much that makes sense is false and so much that’s outlandish is true.


92 posted on 12/29/2010 11:19:11 PM PST by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

What about all the unrelated pork that’s added to the bills?


93 posted on 12/29/2010 11:22:29 PM PST by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

I believe I understand the logic of your point. It’s fascinating.

Still, I would think that repealing Obamacare is only one of many possible approaches.

Couldn’t the congress simply amend Obamacare and effectively null it without declaring the original legislation unconstitutional? Or replace it with something else?

Another approach would be to simply refuse to fund it. I would guess that would be within Congress’ scope of authority (obviously this would create a mess because the law would still stand).


94 posted on 12/29/2010 11:29:12 PM PST by MV=PY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY
Of course, all these possible alternative actions you mentioned to cripple ObamaCare will have a positive end result for the country as a whole.

The bottom line is this: the requirement to state a constitutional basis for every bill introduced, though it sounds good at first glance, may have undesirable consequences in certain instances.

95 posted on 12/30/2010 7:11:51 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Thank you


96 posted on 12/30/2010 5:28:52 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican
Interesting idea, but I doubt it will cause too many in the House to think twice about introducing their legislation. They will merely continue to stretch the "interstate commerce" clause and the "general welfare" clause, etc., beyond recognition. It may slow down pork and earmarks, however.

I agree with your analysis. The idea sounds great but they'll just abuse the aforementioned clauses. Maybe it will make some people think though.

Furthermore, there might be a dilemma if new legislation was introduced to repeal previous legislation which the current congressman might regard as unconstitutional, e.g., ObamaCare. What constitutional basis would he cite for repeal?

Obviously repeal of any legislation would carry this same 'problem'. I don't think this policy could be applied to repealing stuff, only new legislation.

97 posted on 12/31/2010 3:13:24 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-97 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson