Congress has a Constitution problem — many don’t understand document

Congress has a Constitution problem — many don’t understand document


www.washingtontimes.com...


By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times
Monday, January 14, 2013

Each of them takes an oath to defend the Constitution, but many House lawmakers either don’t understand the founding document or don’t take its precepts seriously, according to an analysis by The Washington Times that studied the constitutional backing that representatives submitted for each of the more than 3,000 bills they introduced in 2011.

(snip)

The first year’s worth of action was less than inspiring for adherents of the founding document: Many lawmakers ignored the rule, while others sliced and diced the clauses to justify what they were trying to do. One thumbed his nose at the exercise altogether, saying it’s up to the courts, not Congress, to determine what is constitutional.

(snip)

The House also kicked off the last Congress by hosting a reading of the full Constitution on the chamber floor — the first time that had been done. On Tuesday, the 113th Congress will start with another reading.

“The thing that jumped out is how many parts of the Constitution members of Congress seem to think grant them legislative authority,” said Doug Kendall, founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center. “I wouldn’t have thought the 10th Amendment, which is about not legislating, or the First Amendment, which says ‘Congress shall make no law,’ would be fertile ground for legislative authority.”

Ok, did we all already know this, or what? I mean, we *say* it, but, did we know it really ran so deep, and TRUE?

The *first time they read it on the floor? You have to be kidding me? That one set me back a minute.

I especially love the last paragraph.

I think we should fire them all and start over. Give them a written test after they are nominated for election. If they cannot pass it, they don't make it on the ballot.

Same forthe president. All presidents must show a birth certificate, for public consumption, as well, with both parentS as US citizens. Now those are some laws I can deal with!

Originally posted by Libertygal


Same forthe president. All presidents must show a birth certificate, for public consumption, as well, with both parentS as US citizens. Now those are some laws I can deal with!

So you're going to stamp your feet about people desiring a change to the Constitution, and yet you can't wait to change the Constitution?

Get over yourself.

reply to post by Libertygal

Watch them counter the Constitutional issue on the Second Amendment as no longer relevant (case in point that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person back then).

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Libertygal


Same forthe president. All presidents must show a birth certificate, for public consumption, as well, with both parentS as US citizens. Now those are some laws I can deal with!

So you're going to stamp your feet about people desiring a change to the Constitution, and yet you can't wait to change the Constitution?

Get over yourself.

LOLI never said I wanted to change the Constitution.

Wow, good mornin' to you too!



ETA: Learn to recognize sarcasm.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Watch them counter the Constitutional issue on the Second Amendment as no longer relevant (case in point that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person back then).

Sadly Justice Scalia has almost done as much. He says the citizens have the right to bear arms, but the 2nd doesn't really place limitations on the government.

I was kind of under the impression the *entirety* of the constitution already did that!

reply to post by Libertygal

All presidents must show a birth certificate, for public consumption, as well, with both parentS as US citizens. Now those are some laws I can deal with!

Hey look, someone else who doesn't understand the Constitution.

Amazing how Birthers attempt to snake their silly beliefs into every single discussion.

the reading of the constitution in congress may be a signal that there is a major shift of power going on behind the scene.

as it wasn't read, or adhered to in the past, likley confirms what many who are aware already know ... that our 'government' is actually a corporation foreign to this land, and have been acting without our best intrests in mind in a effort to use the economic and military power this land has to enslave the people of the world and create a single world government.

we should be very supportive of the persons involved in this process, and perhaps can the sarcasm for now.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Many lawmakers ignored the rule, while others sliced and diced the clauses to justify what they were trying to do. One thumbed his nose at the exercise altogether, saying it’s up to the courts, not Congress, to determine what is constitutional.

I am confused by this snippet. The Judicial branch does in fact determine what is and what is not constitutional. Each member of Congress is provided with "guide" from the Judicial branch outlining standing case law as it relates to the constitution.

Absent the Justice branch deliberating and determining what is constitutional via the people arguing thier case via lower and higher courts plus SCOTUS...How would you go about determining what is constitutional? Your opinion?

reply to post by tinhattribunal


I agree. The sarcasm was in my remarks.


Perhaps people need to lighten up a bit.


I posted the article because I felt it needed to be seen. One would think tge sarcastic parts were obvious. And certainly not harmful.


So why is it that nearly every response in this thread is some nasty ass remark about the poster, and not the post.

Stay on topic.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Libertygal

Many lawmakers ignored the rule, while others sliced and diced the clauses to justify what they were trying to do. One thumbed his nose at the exercise altogether, saying it’s up to the courts, not Congress, to determine what is constitutional.

I am confused by this snippet. The Judicial branch does in fact determine what is and what is not constitutional. Each member of Congress is provided with "guide" from the Judicial branch outlining standing case law as it relates to the constitution.

Absent the Justice branch deliberating and determining what is constitutional via the people arguing thier case via lower and higher courts plus SCOTUS...How woul
d you go about determining what is constitutional? Your opinion?

You are correct, but reading the entire article helps:

Under rules that the new Republican majority put into place, each
House member introducing a bill must cite specific parts of the
Constitution that they think grant Congress the authority to take
the action they are proposing.

Perhaps I should have included the concurrent paragraph.

Basically, they are required, upon presenting a new law, to show how they feel it is constitutional. This is while it is in committe, exactly where these types of discussions shiuld take place. You want a proposed law to pass Judicial Committe scrutiny before attempting to pass it. Many bills are proposed, sent to committe, then sent back to be redrawn for all sorts of reasons, and we see it on occasion, that when bills are put to the vote, they are argued as unconstitutional. Better to return it now, than to fight it in court once it has been made an act.


The article is written by a someone in Judicial review, remarking about, what appears to be the fresham Republicans, though I doubt it is only about freshmen or Republicans, just congress in general.

It's a great read, though. I really had no idea the constitution had never been read on the floor.