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

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans promised that with every bill they introduced this session they would attach how the Constitution plays a part in it.
The 1st bill they offered was to do away with the health care bill.
And they forgot to add the Constitution part to it.
LOL, oh well, let's read the Constitution as the deficit goes up another 1.9 billion a day while they waste our time.
Smile, your on CANDID CAMERA.

"Add" the Constitution?

Add the cite of constitutional authority for every bill introduced.
Every bill.
They added that to their own rules and first bill out they forgot to cite what constitutional authority.

Has the bill been presented yet? Only a complete idiot would expect them to present a constitutional reference for a bil that has not been presented to the floor, which is why the new rule makes that provision, not just a blanket requirement to make up something before anyone actually writes a bill. Besides, I doubt that even you would argue that the ability to repeal a law is not part of the powers of Congress.

But feel free to keep whining.

 

[goldcatt]

I like the requiring the specific Constitutional authority for any introduced legislation better. But I have no problem with this. The problem is that neither side will understand it any better then they do now. They both believe the Constitution is a sledge hammer when it can be used in favor of their position and it's toilet paper when it doesn't

Now that's the best explanation of how Congress really works I've seen yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well of course it is..

They seem to completely miss all the stuff about levying taxes to pay down debts. Because one of the rule changes was to take tax cuts out of the mix when figuring out budgets.

Even the most "real" conservative business person doesn't do that..

I could just see it.

Gosh..lets cut the price on our product. Doesn't affect revenue in the slightest.

Kind of like you keep missing the part about actually paying down those debts, not running them up.

Me?

Chief..go back through these threads. I was against the Tax Compromise. I am all for cutting expenditures. We are in two unpaid for wars that were started by an Administration that thought they were slick by making the "Emergency Spending" and keeping them off budget...so it looked like they added nothing to the deficit.

Let me explain this using words as small as possible.

The only way to run up a debt is to spend more money than you have. Unless you oppose government borrowing for anything, and support a requirement that the government not only have a balanced budget, but work within that budget, you are only spouting talking points.

Even if we had let every single one of the Bush tax cuts expire the deficit would still be going up because Congress is spending more money than it has, and way more than the $3 trillion dollars that those taxes would bring in over the next 10 years.

Get it now? We have to pay down the debt, and not spend more than we have. That will require that we cut spending and raise taxes, not just raise taxes and reduce our planned increases in spending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You talk like a politician. Very good show.
Specifically. Their rule states "require a SPECIFIC Constitutional authority in every bill introduced."
I am paying attention. You are dancing around the facts like a monkey on fire.

the specific constitutional authority is that it is unconstitutional, in other words,,, let's talk slow,, the is no basis for the health care bill that is in the constitution,, that makes it unconstitutional. There. ya got it now?

So in your opinion Congress has unlimited authority based on no Article, Clause, Section or Amendment of the document to pass any piece of legislation repealing anything majority partisan leadership considers unconstitutional simply because they consider it unconstitutional?

Interesting reasoning. That has to be a first.

That sounds like you are arguing that Congress does not have Constitutional authority to repeal laws. Since I know you do not believe that I will just assume that you are in teaching mode and trying to make a point.

good luck with that.

 

[kaz]

the specific constitutional authority is that it is unconstitutional, in other words,,, let's talk slow,, the is no basis for the health care bill that is in the constitution,, that makes it unconstitutional. There. ya got it now?

So in your opinion Congress has unlimited authority based on no Article, Clause, Section or Amendment of the document to pass any piece of legislation repealing anything majority partisan leadership considers unconstitutional simply because they consider it unconstitutional?

Interesting reasoning. That has to be a first.

That sounds like you are arguing that Congress does not have Constitutional authority to repeal laws. Since I know you do not believe that I will just assume that you are in teaching mode and trying to make a point.

good luck with that.

People are getting confused. The Constitution lays out specific Constitutional authority for the Federal government. The Founding Fathers thought it was clear in the document that any power not granted by the Constitution wasn't an authority and therefore the Federal government couldn't do it. The Bill of Rights were introduced at the Constitutional Convention and were largely ignored because no one thought they were necessary. Alexander Hamilton even wrote they were dangerous because they suggested the Federal government had authority it didn't.

Anyway, when they passed the bill of rights, they made that explicit in the 10th Amendment, any authority not granted in the Constitution to the Federal government is prohibited to the Federal government. And the 9th Amendment stated that just because a right of the people is not reserved in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Future Amendments doesn't mean it's any less important then other rights that are listed.

So, the issue is that if an introducer of legislation cannot cite a specific Constitutional Authority for that legislation, the legislation is clearly unconstitutional by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It had nothing to do with repealing laws.

 

[WillowTree]

You talk like a politician. Very good show.
Specifically. Their rule states "require a SPECIFIC Constitutional authority in every bill introduced."
I am paying attention. You are dancing around the facts like a monkey on fire.

the specific constitutional authority is that it is unconstitutional, in other words,,, let's talk slow,, the is no basis for the health care bill that is in the constitution,, that makes it unconstitutional. There. ya got it now?

Lets talk slower.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

All in once clause.

So forcing someone to buy a product is a tax? Now? So if this is true you will stop telling us this isn't a government take over huh?

 

[goldcatt]

the specific constitutional authority is that it is unconstitutional, in other words,,, let's talk slow,, the is no basis for the health care bill that is in the constitution,, that makes it unconstitutional. There. ya got it now?

So in your opinion Congress has unlimited authority based on no Article, Clause, Section or Amendment of the document to pass any piece of legislation repealing anything majority partisan leadership considers unconstitutional simply because they consider it unconstitutional?

Interesting reasoning. That has to be a first.

That sounds like you are arguing that Congress does not have Constitutional authority to repeal laws. Since I know you do not believe that I will just assume that you are in teaching mode and trying to make a point.

good luck with that.

Thanks, I think I'll need it.

 

[kaz]

So forcing someone to buy a product is a tax? Now? So if this is true you will stop telling us this isn't a government take over huh?

Well, remember that tax cuts are spending. When the government allows you to keep any of your money, it is spending it's money as everything does belong to the government. And of course, government spending is "investment." It's like 1984...

 

[WillowTree]

So forcing someone to buy a product is a tax? Now? So if this is true you will stop telling us this isn't a government take over huh?

Well, remember that tax cuts are spending. When the government allows you to keep any of your money, it is spending it's money as everything does belong to the government. And of course, government spending is "investment." It's like 1984...

demonRats speak outta both sides of their azz don't they?

 

[goldcatt]

So in your opinion Congress has unlimited authority based on no Article, Clause, Section or Amendment of the document to pass any piece of legislation repealing anything majority partisan leadership considers unconstitutional simply because they consider it unconstitutional?

Interesting reasoning. That has to be a first.

That sounds like you are arguing that Congress does not have Constitutional authority to repeal laws. Since I know you do not believe that I will just assume that you are in teaching mode and trying to make a point.

good luck with that.

People are getting confused. The Constitution lays out specific Constitutional authority for the Federal government. The Founding Fathers thought it was clear in the document that any power not granted by the Constitution wasn't an authority and therefore the Federal government couldn't do it. The Bill of Rights were introduced at the Constitutional Convention and were largely ignored because no one thought they were necessary. Alexander Hamilton even wrote they were dangerous because they suggested the Federal government had authority it didn't.

Anyway, when they passed the bill of rights, they made that explicit in the 10th Amendment, any authority not granted in the Constitution to the Federal government is prohibited to the Federal government. And the 9th Amendment stated that just because a right of the people is not reserved in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Future Amendments doesn't mean it's any less important then other rights that are listed.

So, the issue is that if an introducer of legislation cannot cite a specific Constitutional Authority for that legislation, the legislation is clearly unconstitutional by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It had nothing to do with repealing laws.

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.

 

[kaz]

People are getting confused. The Constitution lays out specific Constitutional authority for the Federal government. The Founding Fathers thought it was clear in the document that any power not granted by the Constitution wasn't an authority and therefore the Federal government couldn't do it. The Bill of Rights were introduced at the Constitutional Convention and were largely ignored because no one thought they were necessary. Alexander Hamilton even wrote they were dangerous because they suggested the Federal government had authority it didn't.

Anyway, when they passed the bill of rights, they made that explicit in the 10th Amendment, any authority not granted in the Constitution to the Federal government is prohibited to the Federal government. And the 9th Amendment stated that just because a right of the people is not reserved in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Future Amendments doesn't mean it's any less important then other rights that are listed.

So, the issue is that if an introducer of legislation cannot cite a specific Constitutional Authority for that legislation, the legislation is clearly unconstitutional by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It had nothing to do with repealing laws.

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.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Every so often someone comes up with a bill of attainder (Sen Kennedy did this to Murdoch on a regular basis it seemed) and the folks who passed Clinton's first tax bill need to remember the prohibition on ex post facto laws.

It is short and to the point, and it won't waste any more time than declaring June 2 national toothbrush day.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Are you serious?!?

.

 

[goldcatt]

People are getting confused. The Constitution lays out specific Constitutional authority for the Federal government. The Founding Fathers thought it was clear in the document that any power not granted by the Constitution wasn't an authority and therefore the Federal government couldn't do it. The Bill of Rights were introduced at the Constitutional Convention and were largely ignored because no one thought they were necessary. Alexander Hamilton even wrote they were dangerous because they suggested the Federal government had authority it didn't.

Anyway, when they passed the bill of rights, they made that explicit in the 10th Amendment, any authority not granted in the Constitution to the Federal government is prohibited to the Federal government. And the 9th Amendment stated that just because a right of the people is not reserved in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Future Amendments doesn't mean it's any less important then other rights that are listed.

So, the issue is that if an introducer of legislation cannot cite a specific Constitutional Authority for that legislation, the legislation is clearly unconstitutional by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It had nothing to do with repealing laws.

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?

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Well said.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their differing opinions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think it's a great idea. I mean, it's not as important and statemman-like as getting Stephen Colbert up there, but hey.

 

[Sallow]

the specific constitutional authority is that it is unconstitutional, in other words,,, let's talk slow,, the is no basis for the health care bill that is in the constitution,, that makes it unconstitutional. There. ya got it now?

Lets talk slower.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

All in once clause.

So forcing someone to buy a product is a tax? Now? So if this is true you will stop telling us this isn't a government take over huh?

Whooshed right over that General Welfare part didja?

Probably falls under the commerce clause as well.

 

[Sallow]

I think it's a great idea. I mean, it's not as important and statemman-like as getting Stephen Colbert up there, but hey.

Or Elmo!

 

[WillowTree]

Lets talk slower.



All in once clause.

So forcing someone to buy a product is a tax? Now? So if this is true you will stop telling us this isn't a government take over huh?

Whooshed right over that General Welfare part didja?

Probably falls under the commerce clause as well.

don't think so

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think it's a great idea. I mean, it's not as important and statemman-like as getting Stephen Colbert up there, but hey.

Or Elmo!

Was Cookie Monster there too?