Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[kiwiman127]

Oh good, there won't be any more Terri Schiavo type of intrusion of States Rights!

 

[loosecannon]

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

The teatards will believe it every time something that transparent is used to support unconstitutional GOP legislation.

 

[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!

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.

.

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

 

[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.

.

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.

or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?

 

[loosecannon]

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

Only the courts can issue authoritative declarations about what is or isn't unconstitutional.

If Congress or the president assert that a new law is or isn't constitutional their opinion is meaningless. As meaningless as the opinion of Bart Simpson.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

Only the courts can issue authoritative declarations about what is or isn't unconstitutional. Since they took oaths to uphold the Constitution, it would be in direct violation of their duties.

If Congress or the president assert that a new law is or isn't constitutional their opinion is meaningless. As meaningless as the opinion of Bart Simpson.

Agree that the courts make the final decision.

But Congress or the President can't knowingly attempt or pass something they know to be unconstitutional.

Any law that comes of Congress is by default constitutional; it is the law of the land, unless or until a challenge is taken to court.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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.

.

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.

or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?

Not at all! But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.

Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing they are constitutional?

Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it

Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with.....

 

[Agit8r]

That's cool. As long as they are willing to do the same when a Pinochetist is in the White House

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Im sure the Interstate Commerce Clause implies that somehow. Im not sure how yet. But why wouldnt it?

 

[Avatar4321]

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: New GOP Constitution rule irks House Democrats | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

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

No branch of the Federal Government determines what's Constitutional. The Constitution is the standard to determine the Constitutionality of an issue.

And all three branches are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution. So it's the Responsibility of each branch to ensure that the Federal Government doesn't over step it's bounds.

Congress is finally taking some positive action to do this. It's nice for a change.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh good, there won't be any more Terri Schiavo type of intrusion of States Rights!

Read the 14th amendment sometimes. The Federal Government has the obligation to protect citizens rights to life against termination without due process.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote

The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.

It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote

The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.

It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.

it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE. Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn

 

[Avatar4321]

it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE. Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn

The Air Force began as divisions within the Army. For funding purposes, I am sure they are still considered that.

However, if you really think we need a Constitutional Amendment to keep the Air Force Legitimate. Then I highly doubt it will be difficult to pass if the issue comes up.

I doubt the issue is going to come up.

 

[Agit8r]

it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE. Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn

The Air Force began as divisions within the Army. For funding purposes, I am sure they are still considered that.

However, if you really think we need a Constitutional Amendment to keep the Air Force Legitimate. Then I highly doubt it will be difficult to pass if the issue comes up.

I doubt the issue is going to come up.

It should come up. There isn't a specifically enumerated power to operate an Air Force.

There is also no specific enumeration of power to operate ATF, FBI, NSA, DEA, CIA, NASA, Secret Service, FEMA, TSA, Dept of Agriculture... the list goes on and on...

 

[Sallow]

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.

.

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.

or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?

The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote

The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.

It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.

it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE. Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn

Just a FYI

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps probably to be more "pure" in allegiance to the Constitution (1926-1947)

What we know as the "Air Force" today was formed in 1947. Of course, coming off the era of FDR, the era of the "constitution did not mean that much" or the "flexible constitution" was started, this should be no surprise.

 

[Sallow]

I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote

The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.

It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.

it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE. Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn

Constitutionally..the "ARMY" is not permanent. The navy is..

 

[jillian]

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.

or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?

The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.

civics should be taught in school. or you can always get a poli sci degree which gives you absolutely no job skills unless you go on to law school. lol..