Enumerated Powers Act Seeks to Limit Role of Federal Government

Mens News Daily ^ | June 26, 2003 | Jimmy Moore

[Leatherneck_MT]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and five Republican co-sponsors are pushing a bill in Congress that would require every new law created to specify which part of the U.S. Constitution it derives its power from.

The Enumerated Powers Act, or HR 384, seeks a closer look at the issue of federalism, or the role of the national government in creating laws outside of its constitutional authority.

The Constitutional Authority clause of the Enumerated Powers Act states 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."

[Leatherneck_MT]

I think this one needs our support BIG Time.

[billbears]

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and five Republican co-sponsors are pushing a bill in Congress that would require every new law created to specify which part of the U.S. Constitution it derives its power from.

Good luck Representative. Considering over half of your own party doesn't bother with the document anymore, how exactly are you planning to get this to pass?

[pgobrien]

OH Yeah! Let them show in the Federal Manual (or the Constitution)where they get their power and what their mission is!.....would surely stop a lot of the nonsense.

[Common Tator]

I think this one needs our support BIG Time.

This would be a worthless law.

Who will decide if a law does come from the stated part of the constitution? Why the courts that is who.

And what would a liberal court rule about a law they did not like? You got it right. Any law the judges did not like they would overturn because it did not descend from the constitution. And any law they did like would come from their favorite penumbra of the constitution.

This a giant waste of time designed to appeal to people who can't think.

How many times do the Justices have to rule against the clear meaning of the words in the constitution before you figure out

The Law is whatever the judges say it is.

[Grut]

So every law would cite Article I Section 8 and that'd be the end of it.

[A Navy Vet]

They probably wouldn't bother to go that far in and just reference the Preamble..."general welfare"...

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The Law is whatever the judges say it is.

Correct. Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision citing a constitutional right to an abortion that absolutely does not exist. The decision used "emanations from a penumbra" as the phrase to justify a phantom right to an abortion which is nowhere to be found in the constitution.

[TheAngryClam]

They do anyway, usually via the Commerce Clause.

The problem isn't picking a power, it's using that power properly.

[appalachian_dweller]

This sounds great, but Tator has a point. The only way I can think of to limit the governments powers are for everyone to get involved and vote. After all, that's were the power is suppose to be. But when I hear of comments from people to the effect of "We love Hillary, we don't care about the truth.", I don't hold much hope of that happening.

I read about the we love Hitlery comment on a thread here on FR. The subject matter was about some FReepers protesting the shrew at one of her book signings.

Just for discussion, can anyone else think of any ways to limit the feds?

[MarkT]

This is te-fuc*ing-riffic - I am delighted (and appalled that I did not propose it earlier) - I am going to send it to my rep and senators now (although sadlyl, my rep is Dollar Bill Jefferson and my senators are Mary I can lie more than you Landrieu and John My son the Lobbyist Breaux. I will also send it to the other La reps that may actually give a damn about the Constitution.

[jimkress]

Didn't Congress pass this requirement as a law a few years ago?

[Jhoffa_]

...a bill in Congress that would require every new law created to specify which part of the U.S. Constitution it derives its power from.

What a prefectly REASONABLE request..

You are passing laws like there's no tomorrow, so could you PLEASE just take a second and jot down the part of the Constitution that allows you to pass a particular piece of legislation?

It's totally proper to make such a request.. that should have been the rule from the beginning, actually.

That said, however.. You KNOW they are going to deep six this immediately.

[Jhoffa_]

This would be a worthless law.

No, not by a long shot..

Granted, it won't stop much unconstitutional legislation.. But it will make people think and it will make the more outragous abuses (and by extention, the people who put them forth) on the spot.

It's one more tool we can use to point out the corrupt & unconstitutional nature of Congress.

I like it.

[John Valentine]

The Constitution does not grant rights, and it is very explicit on this point. Rights inhere in the people.

The Constitution grants powers to the the Federal Government, and it only grants those powers it spcifically enumerates.

Does it asy anywhere in the Contsitution that the Federal Government has the power to legislate in the area of abortion, or health care in general?

Answer: nowhere.

This is a STATE and local responsibility insofar as the people of each state and locality choose to make it so.

[Jhoffa_]

I like this..

I think it's a good idea.

[Jhoffa_]

Check this out..

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Won't happen. Most of the members of our "oligarchy" make their money and afford their power at the consequence of the dieing and trampled Constitution. Nice idea, but it will never fly. I'm afraid we're back to where the Founding Fathers started. We've lost many of our inalienable rights and we're going to keep losing more until things radically change. And I don't trust our apathetic population to figure out "who" the real Constitutionalists are, and who to vote for. Actually, I don't even trust them to read and understand the Constitution.

Our watered-down education system has played right into the Marxists hands. They're a few steps away from victory.

[Jhoffa_]

PS: You know, a REAL good example would be the prescription drug benefit..

I would love to see someone sign off on that as "constitutional" cite it, chapter and verse AND THEN have to defend it come election time, on the news, to people who write in, respond to Limbaugh's inevetable comments on the subject.. etc, etc, etc..

"But, congressman.. You said very plainly that this IS Constitutional.. I looked and I can't find it in there anywhere, can you just take a second and explain sir..?"

It would be great.

[DoughtyOne]

If it's retroactive I'm in for sure. If it's not I'll think about it.