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

[Old Rocks]

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?

I say I have no problem with that. When are they truly going to do that? For the present crop of dingleberries read an edited version of the Constitution into the record, not the real Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Flopper]

I wonder if they are going to read the Bible too.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

LOL wrong as usual.

The intent is to show where they derive there power from, and what powers they have.

Just like the president each Congressperson and Senator Swears an oath to protect and Defend and uphold the Constitution. How silly of you Liberals to thinks it should not be read by each session.

No, it's a publicity stunt. Just like nearly everything else in Washington DC.

But you guys sure are eating it up.


Wait till you see how the "Strict Constitutionalists" act now they've got the power.

Hint: It'll be the same as it ever was.

Well in effect our entire Political System is a Stunt really. So I am not going to argue further

Oh and I know it will be the same as it ever was. Nothing will change in this country with out a violent uprising IMO.

Our freedom is Bought and sold daily in the whore house that is DC.

It's all a charade.

Wait till you see how the "Strict Constitutionalists" act now they've got the power.

If you read my post again I think you would see I said it has nothing to do with being strict Constitutionalists or not. IMO, and I am under no illusions that the Republicans are any thing of the sort.

Now, If even one of those arrogant Pig, Whores we call representatives is even slightly reminded of why he is there, by hearing it read. Then I do not see why you people are so opposed to it.

It sure can't hurt.

I'm not opposed to it. They can do whatever they want. But it's still a publicity stunt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope, that would be the opposite. Remember this repeal is a law, passed by Congress using their authority, to affect changes in health care. So if they state up front they believe health care is a power reserved solely to the States, they've just said they don't have the power to enact any law on health care. At all.

That's a little simplistic, I'm sure if somebody had a couple of clerks and a hundred pages or so of legalese you could make a different argument revolving around the constitutionality of one specific action and not another concerning health care. And that may be what a lot of these statements come down to, a bunch of legalese and splitting hairs. Eventually codified into law and able to be challenged, BTW. But that doesn't solve their political problem, it just makes them look like they're spitting out a hundred pages of legalese and splitting hairs to do what they want to do to get around all that "plain language" of the constitution - even if they turn out to be right.

The first thing I said when I heard about the rule is it was going to bite them in the ass. This is just one of many problems they'll run into.

They do not have to cite the reasons for the law they are repealing, just the law they are writing. I do agree this rule will come back to bite them though, especially when they try to fund something that is not clearly constitutional. I still think it is a good idea, but I like the idea of a government that has problems making up new laws at the drop of a hat.

But that's the problem, isn't it? The law they are writing covers the exact same territory as the law they are repealing. If it didn't, it wouldn't be effective to do what they want to do. So if they can't legislate on that topic, they can't legislate on that topic.

What you're proposing is that Congress sit in judgment on itself and actively argue against its own authority to legislate...as authority to legislate. Let me repeat that: Sit in JUDGEment. Which is precisely why it doesn't work.

So they didn't make the argument, but then the failure to abide by their own rule draws attention to it. As a partisan talking point "Oh look, they're hypocrites", it's a little petty and not such a big deal. But when you look deeper at the fact that they just enacted the rule knowing this bill was already in pocket and claiming it's a 10th Amendment issue Congress never had the authority to address but now, conveniently, want to address it without citing authority.....rock, hard place.

I don't think it does. The ACA is 2000 pages, and the repeal law is supposedly 2 paragraphs. (I have not read it, so I don't know.) It sounds to me like the only territory it is covering is repealing the ACA. I still do not know that the repeal bill is not citing the Constitution, I just keep hearing people tell me it isn't. While I expect them to break the rule eventually, I am willing to give them an actual chance to do so before I jump them for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me point out the obvious here. It doesn't work because it's not their designated job.

Congress is a legislative body. Its only power is to create legislation. Anything that comes out of Congress with the enumerated exception of a constitutional amendment is a piece of US Code. Each new bill introduced is a new, separate proposed law. They can do nothing else, with a few exceptions that don't apply here like impeachment proceedings.

They cannot write a dissertation that is in essence a judicial decision and use Article 3 authority to do an Article 1 job. The system doesn't work that way because it was never designed or intended to work that way. It's a conflict of interest to rely on oneself for a check or balance, so they weren't given that function.

They could still get away with it, IF they hadn't made it clear they wanted it all spelled out. That's where they screwed themselves. Congress was never intended to argue against itself. As you point out, it just doesn't work.

That makes sense, thank you.

One thing I can point out here is that this thing about citing the constitutional authority for new laws is a rule, not a law. Even if was a law, they could always vote to ignore it, like they did they pay go laws when they passed them. Being a cynic I don't ever expaect politicians to keep their promises, so I can only be delightfully surprised when they do.

I was typing while you were I think. You can pretty much ignore my last post.

Yep, it's just a House rule. Which also makes me wonder what conference committees are going to look like when the Senate decides to mess with heir heads and take the House's statements out.

This is going to get a lot more interesting.

Happens, and I had such a witty response to your last post.

Not really, as you can see, more of a wait and see.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I say I have no problem with that. When are they truly going to do that? For the present crop of dingleberries read an edited version of the Constitution into the record, not the real Constitution of the United States of America.

How is it not the real Constitution? They apparently read everything that was not amended out, and that really has force. Are you just upset that you did not get to crow about racism? Or do you think we should go back to the states making their own rules about appointing Senators? Which part is it you want back in?