Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[Avatar4321]

I love the idea.

Anyone who believes in the Constitution and is against corruption does.

 

[rightwinger]

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

So it seems you have a problem already

You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?

 

[Sallow]

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

Have you read the Constitution?

Have you?

That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.

Which they do BTW

Actually..no.

Lets look at the powers.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The "army" must be "raised and supported" but for no longer then two years. And that army is meant to be drawn from a militia. Men in the 1700 were required by law to purchase their own arms and be ready to be called into the army. That's after the Continetal Army was disbanded. The founders were looking for the "citizen soldiers" not a class of professional warriors. The Second Amendment replaced the law to carry arms by making it a right.

There are no such stipulations with the navy. That's permanent. It doesn't need to be raised. Money doesn't need to be voted on every 2 years. And that's mainly because the idea was to defend from invasion..not invade. And to protect routes of commerce. The founders were not interested in Empire.

 

[Intense]

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

So it seems you have a problem already

You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?

Isn't that why we are in the mess we are in??? If the Court is so Noble and above it all, RW, why are so many of the decisions split all the time??? One would expect pretty universal agreement in key rulings, no? What is paramount RW? It used to be the will of the People.

 

[Avatar4321]

Have you?

That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.

Which they do BTW

Actually..no.

Lets look at the powers.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The "army" must be "raised and supported" but for no longer then two years. And that army is meant to be drawn from a militia. Men in the 1700 were required by law to purchase their own arms and be ready to be called into the army. That's after the Continetal Army was disbanded. The founders were looking for the "citizen soldiers" not a class of professional warriors. The Second Amendment replaced the law to carry arms by making it a right.

There are no such stipulations with the navy. That's permanent. It doesn't need to be raised. Money doesn't need to be voted on every 2 years. And that's mainly because the idea was to defend from invasion..not invade. And to protect routes of commerce. The founders were not interested in Empire.

Are you honestly telling me you don't understand the difference between conditions of appropriations and existence of the army in and of itself.

The Constitution limits the appropriations for the Army. Which is why we generally have an appropriations bill every year or so.

It doesn't limit the term of Army service.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this when it's written so clearly.

 

[Sallow]

That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.

Which they do BTW

Actually..no.

Lets look at the powers.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The "army" must be "raised and supported" but for no longer then two years. And that army is meant to be drawn from a militia. Men in the 1700 were required by law to purchase their own arms and be ready to be called into the army. That's after the Continetal Army was disbanded. The founders were looking for the "citizen soldiers" not a class of professional warriors. The Second Amendment replaced the law to carry arms by making it a right.

There are no such stipulations with the navy. That's permanent. It doesn't need to be raised. Money doesn't need to be voted on every 2 years. And that's mainly because the idea was to defend from invasion..not invade. And to protect routes of commerce. The founders were not interested in Empire.

Are you honestly telling me you don't understand the difference between conditions of appropriations and existence of the army in and of itself.

The Constitution limits the appropriations for the Army. Which is why we generally have an appropriations bill every year or so.

It doesn't limit the term of Army service.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this when it's written so clearly.

There isn't a "limit" because no one knew how long a raised army would have to be put into place to repel an invasion or squash an insurrection. But the army was meant to be "as needed" not permanent.

And when discussing the "perversion" of the Constitution one need look no further then our current military industrial complex.

 

[Avatar4321]

There isn't a "limit" because no one knew how long a raised army would have to be put into place to repel an invasion or squash an insurrection. But the army was meant to be "as needed" not permanent.

And when discussing the "perversion" of the Constitution one need look no further then our current military industrial complex.

It certainly needs some looking at.

We need some radical changes to our attitudes and the policies we support.

 

[rightwinger]

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

So it seems you have a problem already

You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?

Isn't that why we are in the mess we are in??? If the Court is so Noble and above it all, RW, why are so many of the decisions split all the time??? One would expect pretty universal agreement in key rulings, no? What is paramount RW? It used to be the will of the People.

The will of the people is not always what our Constitution requires. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the minority against the will of the majority. That is why we have courts

 

[Revere]

Then amend the Constitution. That's provided for.

 

[shintao]

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!

Good idea, Dems can attach riders to current passed Retard laws, and then say there is no constitutionality for the law. Nice way to end the ME war, and bring all of our troops home from abroad.

 

[jillian]

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

So it seems you have a problem already

You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?

Isn't that why we are in the mess we are in??? If the Court is so Noble and above it all, RW, why are so many of the decisions split all the time??? One would expect pretty universal agreement in key rulings, no? What is paramount RW? It used to be the will of the People.

the decisions are split because great minds disagree.... which is why it's such a joke when people come on here and start saying they *know* what the constitution says.

and no... that isn't why we're in the mess we're in.

 

[westwall]

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.

Actually the Air Force began as a branch of the Army Signal Corps (called naturally enough the Aviation Section) in 1914 and their first operation was the punative operation against Pancho Villa in 1916 and by that time the unit was called the First Aero Squadron.
May 24 1918 saw the creation of the U.S. Army Air Service by President Wilson and placed under the direct control of the War Department.

 

[Agit8r]

It seems odd that soldiers enlist for longer than 2 years, as if this does not bind the congress to fund their enlisted term

 

[Agit8r]

Fusion Centers? NOPE!

"Congress have power to suppress insurrection, yet it would nor be allowed to follow, that they might employ all the means tending to prevent them; of which a system of moral instruction for the ignorant, and of provident support for the poor, might be regarded as among the most efficacious."

--James Madison; Report on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1899)

 

[Contumacious]

Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority,!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc"]Are you serious?[/ame]

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause

Won't be hard to justify

Go ahead cite for us a SINGLE instance of ANYONE or any CONGRESS ever claiming the supposed General Welfare "clause" applied? I won't wait.

As for Supremacy Clause, that does not grant any power to CREATE new laws, it simply says that any LEGALLY Constitutional law passed by the US Congress and approved by the President supersedes State law. The specific law STILL has to be Constitutional.

 

[code1211]

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.

If so, that's an ass needs biting.

 

[code1211]

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause

Won't be hard to justify

You either have never read or just cannot understand those clauses.

 

[code1211]

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

I hope the Commerce Clause is about to have a more narrow definition applied than has been used in the past.

 

[code1211]

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 being a lawyer lends much confusion to my understanding of legal decisions. However, it seems that when a suit is brought, a particular point of law is cited as the reason for the complaint.

Decisions on the other hand can often stray from that particular point.

All of that said, if the part of the Constitution cited to jusify a particular law is included in the law, that would serve to both predict the Constitutionality of the law and direct the suit to be brought in the future.

I think, given the implementation of this rule, we probably could have avoided both Viet Nam and Iraq. The Congress is not, I don't think, alowed the option to abdicate its responsiblity to declare war, is it?

Both of these are are examples of the cowardice and the limp wristed "nuanced response" favored by our Legislators today. They willingly force their responsibilities on the President than complain loud and long that he exercises them.