Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[Neotrotsky]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a rule that should have always been in effect.

It also makes law suit challenges easier to define.

 

[WillowTree]

poor old bawney. looks sad so so so so sad.

 

[WillowTree]

The Republican house should throw a welcome back "weenie" roast donchyathink?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

 

[Neotrotsky]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

Really, the US Constitution was meant to bite ALL politicians in the ass

 

[Avatar4321]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

Well fine then. It's not about giving Republicans power. It's about keeping our Politicians honest.

 

[rightwinger]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

 

[Neotrotsky]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

Then the Dems should stop whining about it

 

[Revere]

Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.

or that you have to buy something

 

[rightwinger]

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause

Won't be hard to justify

 

[Revere]

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution? Why have judges to interpret it?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause

Won't be hard to justify

Sure, with those why even have a Constitution

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution? Why have judges to interpret it?

It is the only hope the Left has.....


They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Supremacy clause only means that when there is a conflict, federal rules take precedence.

The usual route is not General Welfare, ast that is pretty narrowly restricted to the enumerated powers.

The usual route is the commerce clause. But that has been stretched way too far already

 

[DiamondDave]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

No.. it is not very broad...

And while there is legal precedence, a lot of it is directly against the intent and wording of the constitution.. it just so happens that the power hungry government has been happy to go along with it...



And there is indeed a way built in to change or add to the constitution... it's called the amendment process.. and for things that are 'wanted' that are outside the scope of the constitution as specifically written, the process should be used... and if the amendment cannot be done, the change does not come about and the government does not get to do the extras it seeks to do

 

[jillian]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

what a stupid rule.

it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.

and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??

the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.

i'm pretty sure they didn't consider the issue of whether ledbetter's rights were violated by goodyear tires.

i like this from the article:

Both parties are operating under the same set of rules. When Republicans lose, though, they call Democrats unpatriotic and unconstitutional. It’s like the Republicans think that the Constitution will somehow save them from gay people, the poor, minorities and everything else that makes them uncomfortable,” the aide said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/22/new-gop-constitution-rule-irks-house-democrats/#ixzz18y3wmFLL

like it's real difficult to say 'the general welfare clause' or the 'commerce clause'. lol.. 'tards.

 

[loosecannon]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.

What happens when a dem controlled congress is asked to support an unconstitutional presidentially sponsored article of legislation? (see 2006-2008 for answer)

It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors. But good luck there, nobody is more responsible for constitutionality creep than the courts.

 

[loosecannon]

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution? Why have judges to interpret it?

It is the only hope the Left has.....


They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People

obviously you meant to say "the right".