Does anyone have a problem with the reading of the US Constitution on the record

[Jeremy]

I thought the rule was that they want to start each session with a morning constitutional?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Promoting doesn't equal forcing. Given that logic the government has the right to mandate diet, what we drink, how much rest we get, when we go on vacation, what we watch on TV, etc.

Oh, wait... Never mind.. they're working on that.

One of our more fundamental rights is to make a bad decision and be forced to live with the consequences.

 

[Charles_Main]

its come to my attention that some on the left view congress reading the constitution into record as a solely a publicity stunt and should not be done

what say you?

yes it's a publicity stunt. and the implication is intended to be that they're "constitutionalists".

LOL wrong as usual.

The intent is to show where they derive there power from, and what powers they have.

Just like the president each Congressperson and Senator Swears an oath to protect and Defend and uphold the Constitution. How silly of you Liberals to think it should not be read by each session.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

its come to my attention that some on the left view congress reading the constitution into record as a solely a publicity stunt and should not be done

what say you?

yes it's a publicity stunt. and the implication is intended to be that they're "constitutionalists".

LOL wrong as usual.

The intent is to show where they derive there power from, and what powers they have.

Just like the president each Congressperson and Senator Swears an oath to protect and Defend and uphold the Constitution. How silly of you Liberals to thinks it should not be read by each session.

No, it's a publicity stunt. Just like nearly everything else in Washington DC.

But you guys sure are eating it up.


Wait till you see how the "Strict Constitutionalists" act now they've got the power.

Hint: It'll be the same as it ever was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That said, of COURSE the repeal of a law that Congress made will be constitutional under the exact same authority as the law it repeals. It's addressing the same issue, is it not?

This part confuses me.

Let us hypothetically set up a case where Congress passes a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. I am talking about something like passing a direct tax, and they later realize that it will be overturned by the courts, and decide to pass a new law to repeal the first. How could the second law be considered to be under the exact same authority as the first law, when the first effectively has no constitutional authority.

 

[goldcatt]

That said, of COURSE the repeal of a law that Congress made will be constitutional under the exact same authority as the law it repeals. It's addressing the same issue, is it not?

This part confuses me.

Let us hypothetically set up a case where Congress passes a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. I am talking about something like passing a direct tax, and they later realize that it will be overturned by the courts, and decide to pass a new law to repeal the first. How could the second law be considered to be under the exact same authority as the first law, when the first effectively has no constitutional authority.

Exactly. It's a conundrum, isn't it? Welcome to one of the problems with the rule.

 

[kaz]

There's more than one issue involved here.

First and most important, a bill in Congress repealing a law IS a proposed law. There is no procedural difference between a bill to implement a program and a bill to end one. They both must follow the same process and both must have constitutional authority.

Do we say it's not a case when SCOTUS reverses one of its own opinions, simply because the net result was to take a precedent off the books with the new decision? No. The same goes for Congress. A repeal is a law whose net effect is to take another law off the books. But it's still a law.

That said, of COURSE the repeal of a law that Congress made will be constitutional under the exact same authority as the law it repeals. It's addressing the same issue, is it not?

But the House rule now clearly states every piece of legislation that is proposed must have the statement of authority in it. The repeal bill lacks that statement. If the Members themselves don't understand that a statute repealing another statute is, in fact, still a statute, we're well and truly screwed.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems more like an intellectual exercise (don't get me wrong, I love those) then an argument that means anything in policy. if you take a step back, the Constitution says that anything the Federal government does must have a Constitutional Authority. How does passing a law stating the Federal government won't do something violate that? There is no mandate anywhere in the Constitution that the Federal government will do anything. It only says that what it can do is restricted to enumerated areas. I'm just not seeing any issue to it stopping doing things that may or may not be Constitutional either way.

Words have meanings. In law, they have very specific meanings and for several specific purposes - one of which is upholding process which ensures basic integrity and fairness. Another is to categorize and classify law according to the hierarchy. There are others, but you get the idea.

The obvious point - that the House majority clearly isn't following its own rule, is admittedly petty. The larger implications are not when we're talking in general about the Members' knowledge of the constitution and related matters. In fact this concerns strictly legislative matters which makes it even worse.

Either the members of a legislative body have so little knowledge of legislative product and procedure that they were of the opinion a repeal doesn't count, which I find hard but not impossible to believe, or they're so cynical about it that they simply assume none of their constituency will understand it. Either way, it doesn't bode well for that body named in the 9th.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your stance on the 9th and 10th in this situation though. I'm not following your logic. Why are they the specific vehicle that makes a bill unconstitutional if the author cannot state an authority saying it is in fact authorized?

You don't have a real argument, it's word parsing and gamesmanship. The movement to cite the Constitutional political authority is to be sure the Federal government is not doing anything it has no Federal authority to do. Read this a few times over. The Federal government has the authority to do nothing, period. When you repeal legislation, you are doing nothing. That is Constitutional on the face of it. They can just cite the entire Constitution for any law they are repealing. Just to play along one more brief moment, here are the options.

The law they are removing had Constitutional authority. Well, then they have the choice to do it or remove it.

The law they are removing did not have Constitutional authority. Are you seriously arguing they don't have the Constitutional authority to repeal a law they didn't have the Constitutional authority to enact, so the Federal government has to keep doing it? The Latin term for that argument would be "crap."

 

[goldcatt]

I understand what you're saying, but it seems more like an intellectual exercise (don't get me wrong, I love those) then an argument that means anything in policy. if you take a step back, the Constitution says that anything the Federal government does must have a Constitutional Authority. How does passing a law stating the Federal government won't do something violate that? There is no mandate anywhere in the Constitution that the Federal government will do anything. It only says that what it can do is restricted to enumerated areas. I'm just not seeing any issue to it stopping doing things that may or may not be Constitutional either way.

Words have meanings. In law, they have very specific meanings and for several specific purposes - one of which is upholding process which ensures basic integrity and fairness. Another is to categorize and classify law according to the hierarchy. There are others, but you get the idea.

The obvious point - that the House majority clearly isn't following its own rule, is admittedly petty. The larger implications are not when we're talking in general about the Members' knowledge of the constitution and related matters. In fact this concerns strictly legislative matters which makes it even worse.

Either the members of a legislative body have so little knowledge of legislative product and procedure that they were of the opinion a repeal doesn't count, which I find hard but not impossible to believe, or they're so cynical about it that they simply assume none of their constituency will understand it. Either way, it doesn't bode well for that body named in the 9th.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your stance on the 9th and 10th in this situation though. I'm not following your logic. Why are they the specific vehicle that makes a bill unconstitutional if the author cannot state an authority saying it is in fact authorized?

You don't have a real argument, it's word parsing and gamesmanship. The movement to cite the Constitutional political authority is to be sure the Federal government is not doing anything it has no Federal authority to do. Read this a few times over. The Federal government has the authority to do nothing, period. When you repeal legislation, you are doing nothing. That is Constitutional on the face of it. They can just cite the entire Constitution for any law they are repealing. Just to play along one more brief moment, here are the options.

The law they are removing had Constitutional authority. Well, then they have the choice to do it or remove it.

The law they are removing did not have Constitutional authority. Are you seriously arguing they don't have the Constitutional authority to repeal a law they didn't have the Constitutional authority to enact, so the Federal government has to keep doing it? The Latin term for that argument would be "crap."

When Congress repeals legislation it is not doing nothing. The legislation it passes and that is signed is entered on the code books as a statute. That statute is a law. It is a law that makes changes to an existing law - in this case, to remove the entirety of its subject. That is all a repeal is. Like any other law, it is Congress using its authority to pass laws that affect that specific area, whether it's commerce or defense or any other area over which Congress has authority. It matters not whether the net effect is more or less regulation, it only matters that there is an effect.

If your argument were correct, Congress would only need constitutional authority to pass laws in areas it had never regulated before. Any change to existing law would be nothing new and Congress would not need to bother with constitutionality, no matter what the nature of the change. That's just plain wrong.

Here's exactly what I'm saying. If Congress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law, it is in force until and unless the courts rule it unconstitutional. But the law has to be in force in order to be challenged. If Congress were to have a change of heart and want to repeal the bill, prior to the new rule it's no problem. Now, they've tied their own hands.

Effectively, the GOP leadership is claiming the health care law is unconstitutional. But by claiming that, they can't cite constitutional authority for acting on what, politically, they've said Congress never had the authority to act on in the first place.

If the repeal bill has a statement showing how Congress has the authority to affect legislation covering the entirety of the content of the health care bill, they've conceded constitutionality and authority to regulate everything they're repealing in that bill with their own argument. They can't do that. So they put out a bill that violates their own brand new rule hoping nobody notices and, if they do, that they swallow the line of hooey that a repeal is somehow not a law, doesn't regulate the exact same material as the law it's intended to get rid of, doesn't require constitutional authority and doesn't count.

Congratulations, it bites them in the ass already which they knew before they ever enacted the rule - and you were played.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That said, of COURSE the repeal of a law that Congress made will be constitutional under the exact same authority as the law it repeals. It's addressing the same issue, is it not?

This part confuses me.

Let us hypothetically set up a case where Congress passes a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. I am talking about something like passing a direct tax, and they later realize that it will be overturned by the courts, and decide to pass a new law to repeal the first. How could the second law be considered to be under the exact same authority as the first law, when the first effectively has no constitutional authority.

Exactly. It's a conundrum, isn't it? Welcome to one of the problems with the rule.

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

 

[goldcatt]

This part confuses me.

Let us hypothetically set up a case where Congress passes a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. I am talking about something like passing a direct tax, and they later realize that it will be overturned by the courts, and decide to pass a new law to repeal the first. How could the second law be considered to be under the exact same authority as the first law, when the first effectively has no constitutional authority.

Exactly. It's a conundrum, isn't it? Welcome to one of the problems with the rule.

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

See my previous post above. ^^

Because of the rule, it's more of a political issue for them now.

What does the repeal cover? Everything in the health care law, right?

So if they put in a statement saying exactly how they have the authority to act on everything that's in that health care law, they lose. They've just admitted they think Congress had authority to pass that law.

Just because it's a "repeal", it doesn't mean it needs no constitutional authority. It's the content covered that needs constitutional authority. So unless Congress has the power to legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill, it can't legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill - even to get rid of it.

Nobody would have batted an eye, except for their own rule.

Gotta love the games people play, eh?

 

[mdn2000]

Take away the tax, that was an amendment, take away the power to tax and I see no problem with government.

To simple.

 

[AquaAthena]

its come to my attention that some on the left view congress reading the constitution into record as a solely a publicity stunt and should not be done

what say you?

I feel is was very appropriate, especially given that this charter was the basis on which most candidates campaigned. It was a symbolism to the voters that marched them in. A very patriotic one, as are the candidates that won. Let those of us who support them have faith in our new reps., and their goals as they try to apply them to what they perceive are the same goals as the American voters. I don't expect perfection, as that concept is subjective.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly. It's a conundrum, isn't it? Welcome to one of the problems with the rule.

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

See my previous post above. ^^

Because of the rule, it's more of a political issue for them now.

What does the repeal cover? Everything in the health care law, right?

So if they put in a statement saying exactly how they have the authority to act on everything that's in that health care law, they lose. They've just admitted they think Congress had authority to pass that law.

Just because it's a "repeal", it doesn't mean it needs no constitutional authority. It's the content covered that needs constitutional authority. So unless Congress has the power to legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill, it can't legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill - even to get rid of it.

Nobody would have batted an eye, except for their own rule.

Gotta love the games people play, eh?

I see what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. They could write a law to repeal Obamacare, and cite the 10th Amendment that Congress does not have the authority in the first place to pass the law as their constitutional authority to repeal it. That would be using the constitution to argue against the original law, not to support it, because no one who is sane would try to use the 10th to defend Obamacare.

(Yes, I know most of the people in Congress are not sane, but that actually supports my point.)

(I think.)

 

[goldcatt]

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

See my previous post above. ^^

Because of the rule, it's more of a political issue for them now.

What does the repeal cover? Everything in the health care law, right?

So if they put in a statement saying exactly how they have the authority to act on everything that's in that health care law, they lose. They've just admitted they think Congress had authority to pass that law.

Just because it's a "repeal", it doesn't mean it needs no constitutional authority. It's the content covered that needs constitutional authority. So unless Congress has the power to legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill, it can't legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill - even to get rid of it.

Nobody would have batted an eye, except for their own rule.

Gotta love the games people play, eh?

I see what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. They could write a law to repeal Obamacare, and cite the 10th Amendment that Congress does not have the authority in the first place to pass the law as their constitutional authority to repeal it. That would be using the constitution to argue against the original law, not to support it, because no one who is sane would try to use the 10th to defend Obamacare.

(Yes, I know most of the people in Congress are not sane, but that actually supports my point.)

(I think.)

Nope, that would be the opposite. Remember this repeal is a law, passed by Congress using their authority, to affect changes in health care. So if they state up front they believe health care is a power reserved solely to the States, they've just said they don't have the power to enact any law on health care. At all.

That's a little simplistic, I'm sure if somebody had a couple of clerks and a hundred pages or so of legalese you could make a different argument revolving around the constitutionality of one specific action and not another concerning health care. And that may be what a lot of these statements come down to, a bunch of legalese and splitting hairs. Eventually codified into law and able to be challenged, BTW. But that doesn't solve their political problem, it just makes them look like they're spitting out a hundred pages of legalese and splitting hairs to do what they want to do to get around all that "plain language" of the constitution - even if they turn out to be right.

The first thing I said when I heard about the rule is it was going to bite them in the ass. This is just one of many problems they'll run into.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See my previous post above. ^^

Because of the rule, it's more of a political issue for them now.

What does the repeal cover? Everything in the health care law, right?

So if they put in a statement saying exactly how they have the authority to act on everything that's in that health care law, they lose. They've just admitted they think Congress had authority to pass that law.

Just because it's a "repeal", it doesn't mean it needs no constitutional authority. It's the content covered that needs constitutional authority. So unless Congress has the power to legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill, it can't legislate on all the stuff in the health care bill - even to get rid of it.

Nobody would have batted an eye, except for their own rule.

Gotta love the games people play, eh?

I see what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. They could write a law to repeal Obamacare, and cite the 10th Amendment that Congress does not have the authority in the first place to pass the law as their constitutional authority to repeal it. That would be using the constitution to argue against the original law, not to support it, because no one who is sane would try to use the 10th to defend Obamacare.

(Yes, I know most of the people in Congress are not sane, but that actually supports my point.)

(I think.)

Nope, that would be the opposite. Remember this repeal is a law, passed by Congress using their authority, to affect changes in health care. So if they state up front they believe health care is a power reserved solely to the States, they've just said they don't have the power to enact any law on health care. At all.

That's a little simplistic, I'm sure if somebody had a couple of clerks and a hundred pages or so of legalese you could make a different argument revolving around the constitutionality of one specific action and not another concerning health care. And that may be what a lot of these statements come down to, a bunch of legalese and splitting hairs. Eventually codified into law and able to be challenged, BTW. But that doesn't solve their political problem, it just makes them look like they're spitting out a hundred pages of legalese and splitting hairs to do what they want to do to get around all that "plain language" of the constitution - even if they turn out to be right.

The first thing I said when I heard about the rule is it was going to bite them in the ass. This is just one of many problems they'll run into.

They do not have to cite the reasons for the law they are repealing, just the law they are writing. I do agree this rule will come back to bite them though, especially when they try to fund something that is not clearly constitutional. I still think it is a good idea, but I like the idea of a government that has problems making up new laws at the drop of a hat.

 

[goldcatt]

This part confuses me.

Let us hypothetically set up a case where Congress passes a law that is blatantly unconstitutional. I am talking about something like passing a direct tax, and they later realize that it will be overturned by the courts, and decide to pass a new law to repeal the first. How could the second law be considered to be under the exact same authority as the first law, when the first effectively has no constitutional authority.

Exactly. It's a conundrum, isn't it? Welcome to one of the problems with the rule.

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

Let me point out the obvious here. It doesn't work because it's not their designated job.

Congress is a legislative body. Its only power is to create legislation. Anything that comes out of Congress with the enumerated exception of a constitutional amendment is a piece of US Code. Each new bill introduced is a new, separate proposed law. They can do nothing else, with a few exceptions that don't apply here like impeachment proceedings.

They cannot write a dissertation that is in essence a judicial decision and use Article 3 authority to do an Article 1 job. The system doesn't work that way because it was never designed or intended to work that way. It's a conflict of interest to rely on oneself for a check or balance, so they weren't given that function.

They could still get away with it, IF they hadn't made it clear they wanted it all spelled out. That's where they screwed themselves. Congress was never intended to argue against itself. As you point out, it just doesn't work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly. It's a conundrum, isn't it? Welcome to one of the problems with the rule.

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

Let me point out the obvious here. It doesn't work because it's not their designated job.

Congress is a legislative body. Its only power is to create legislation. Anything that comes out of Congress with the enumerated exception of a constitutional amendment is a piece of US Code. Each new bill introduced is a new, separate proposed law. They can do nothing else, with a few exceptions that don't apply here like impeachment proceedings.

They cannot write a dissertation that is in essence a judicial decision and use Article 3 authority to do an Article 1 job. The system doesn't work that way because it was never designed or intended to work that way. It's a conflict of interest to rely on oneself for a check or balance, so they weren't given that function.

They could still get away with it, IF they hadn't made it clear they wanted it all spelled out. That's where they screwed themselves. Congress was never intended to argue against itself. As you point out, it just doesn't work.

That makes sense, thank you.

One thing I can point out here is that this thing about citing the constitutional authority for new laws is a rule, not a law. Even if was a law, they could always vote to ignore it, like they did they pay go laws when they passed them. Being a cynic I don't ever expaect politicians to keep their promises, so I can only be delightfully surprised when they do.

 

[goldcatt]

I see what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. They could write a law to repeal Obamacare, and cite the 10th Amendment that Congress does not have the authority in the first place to pass the law as their constitutional authority to repeal it. That would be using the constitution to argue against the original law, not to support it, because no one who is sane would try to use the 10th to defend Obamacare.

(Yes, I know most of the people in Congress are not sane, but that actually supports my point.)

(I think.)

Nope, that would be the opposite. Remember this repeal is a law, passed by Congress using their authority, to affect changes in health care. So if they state up front they believe health care is a power reserved solely to the States, they've just said they don't have the power to enact any law on health care. At all.

That's a little simplistic, I'm sure if somebody had a couple of clerks and a hundred pages or so of legalese you could make a different argument revolving around the constitutionality of one specific action and not another concerning health care. And that may be what a lot of these statements come down to, a bunch of legalese and splitting hairs. Eventually codified into law and able to be challenged, BTW. But that doesn't solve their political problem, it just makes them look like they're spitting out a hundred pages of legalese and splitting hairs to do what they want to do to get around all that "plain language" of the constitution - even if they turn out to be right.

The first thing I said when I heard about the rule is it was going to bite them in the ass. This is just one of many problems they'll run into.

They do not have to cite the reasons for the law they are repealing, just the law they are writing. I do agree this rule will come back to bite them though, especially when they try to fund something that is not clearly constitutional. I still think it is a good idea, but I like the idea of a government that has problems making up new laws at the drop of a hat.

But that's the problem, isn't it? The law they are writing covers the exact same territory as the law they are repealing. If it didn't, it wouldn't be effective to do what they want to do. So if they can't legislate on that topic, they can't legislate on that topic.

What you're proposing is that Congress sit in judgment on itself and actively argue against its own authority to legislate...as authority to legislate. Let me repeat that: Sit in JUDGEment. Which is precisely why it doesn't work.

So they didn't make the argument, but then the failure to abide by their own rule draws attention to it. As a partisan talking point "Oh look, they're hypocrites", it's a little petty and not such a big deal. But when you look deeper at the fact that they just enacted the rule knowing this bill was already in pocket and claiming it's a 10th Amendment issue Congress never had the authority to address but now, conveniently, want to address it without citing authority.....rock, hard place.

 

[goldcatt]

Congress does not have the authority to repeal laws it believes are unconstitutional? No wonder nothing works.

Let me point out the obvious here. It doesn't work because it's not their designated job.

Congress is a legislative body. Its only power is to create legislation. Anything that comes out of Congress with the enumerated exception of a constitutional amendment is a piece of US Code. Each new bill introduced is a new, separate proposed law. They can do nothing else, with a few exceptions that don't apply here like impeachment proceedings.

They cannot write a dissertation that is in essence a judicial decision and use Article 3 authority to do an Article 1 job. The system doesn't work that way because it was never designed or intended to work that way. It's a conflict of interest to rely on oneself for a check or balance, so they weren't given that function.

They could still get away with it, IF they hadn't made it clear they wanted it all spelled out. That's where they screwed themselves. Congress was never intended to argue against itself. As you point out, it just doesn't work.

That makes sense, thank you.

One thing I can point out here is that this thing about citing the constitutional authority for new laws is a rule, not a law. Even if was a law, they could always vote to ignore it, like they did they pay go laws when they passed them. Being a cynic I don't ever expaect politicians to keep their promises, so I can only be delightfully surprised when they do.

I was typing while you were I think. You can pretty much ignore my last post.

Yep, it's just a House rule. Which also makes me wonder what conference committees are going to look like when the Senate decides to mess with heir heads and take the House's statements out.

This is going to get a lot more interesting.

 

[Charles_Main]

yes it's a publicity stunt. and the implication is intended to be that they're "constitutionalists".

LOL wrong as usual.

The intent is to show where they derive there power from, and what powers they have.

Just like the president each Congressperson and Senator Swears an oath to protect and Defend and uphold the Constitution. How silly of you Liberals to thinks it should not be read by each session.

No, it's a publicity stunt. Just like nearly everything else in Washington DC.

But you guys sure are eating it up.


Wait till you see how the "Strict Constitutionalists" act now they've got the power.

Hint: It'll be the same as it ever was.

Well in effect our entire Political System is a Stunt really. So I am not going to argue further

Oh and I know it will be the same as it ever was. Nothing will change in this country with out a violent uprising IMO.

Our freedom is Bought and sold daily in the whore house that is DC.

It's all a charade.

Wait till you see how the "Strict Constitutionalists" act now they've got the power.

If you read my post again I think you would see I said it has nothing to do with being strict Constitutionalists or not. IMO, and I am under no illusions that the Republicans are any thing of the sort.

Now, If even one of those arrogant Pig, Whores we call representatives is even slightly reminded of why he is there, by hearing it read. Then I do not see why you people are so opposed to it.

It sure can't hurt.