Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[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?

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.

Yes, they would have helped you a lot


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...

 

[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.

No it doesn't.

 

[Sallow]

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..

I'd disagree. Politics is pretty important in most office environments.

 

[007]

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!

They should make that retroactive.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm just glad that taxpayers won't have to be having to pay the $7.8 Billion to fund the TSA anymore, since it is not an enumerated power

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm just glad that taxpayers won't have to be having to pay the $7.8 Billion to fund the TSA anymore, since it is not an enumerated power

They shouldnt be in the first place.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Yes, they would have helped you a lot


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...

There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.

 

[Agit8r]

We won't be having to pay for Secret Service protection for these people anymore

Because it is not a specifically enumerated power

 

[Avatar4321]

There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.

Since when is Congress exempt from their oath of office?

 

[Neotrotsky]

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

Yes, they would have helped you a lot


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...

There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.

Agree, but where they passed in good faith or not

Do you believe that a Congressman can say in the House that he wants to introduce a bill that is unconstitutional and get it voted on?


It is the law; they just don't have the final say if it is challenged

Or does their oath mean nothing?

 

[Avatar4321]

We won't be having to pay for Secret Service protection for these people anymore

Because it is not a specifically enumerated power

Fine. they can afford their own guards.

 

[Agit8r]

Security for supreme court justices?

NOPE!

 

[Revere]

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

Yes, they would have helped you a lot


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...

There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.

It's not the job of Congress to keep throwing extra-Constitutional shit at the wall just to see what sticks.

 

[Agit8r]

Deporting illegal immigrants?

NOPE!

 

[Agit8r]

Wiretapping?

NOPE!

 

[jillian]

It's not the job of Congress to keep throwing extra-Constitutional shit at the wall just to see what sticks.

and as soon as you have the ability to know what is and isn't constitutional, i'm sure your trolling will mean something.

until then, let the grown ups speak.

 

[Agit8r]

War on Drugs?

NOPE!

 

[Agit8r]

War on Terror?

NOPE!

 

[Revere]

The less Congress does, the better.

 

[Agit8r]

Faith based initiatives?

NOPE!