Will the GOP Walk the Walk on the Constitution?
Now that the Republicans have won control of the House of Representatives, they’ve chosen to demonstrate their respect for the U.S. Constitution in two important ways. First, they plan on reading the full text of the Constitution on Thursday, January 6, 2011, one day after swearing in John Boehner (R-OH) as the new speaker of the House. Second, they’ve promised that every new bill will contain a statement citing the constitutional authority for the proposed law. But while these are important symbolic steps, the real test will be whether the GOP-controlled House will defend the Constitution with deeds and not just words — especially on high-stakes issues like health care. In other words, will the GOP “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk” on the Constitution?
The fact that the Republicans proclaim respect for the Constitution is an encouraging contrast to the open disdain expressed by many Democrats during last year’s health care debate. When a reporter asked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi where the Constitution authorized the government to require Americans to purchase health insurance, her only reply was, “Are you serious?” When Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) was asked a similar question at a town hall meeting, he replied, “The federal government [...] can do most anything in this country.” And when then-Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) was asked about the constitutional legitimacy of ObamaCare, he replied, “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” That’s a far cry from George Washington’s pledge that “the Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.”
While the GOP’s expressions of respect for the Constitution are a welcome change, they are not enough. The Republicans must also demonstrate respect for and commitment to the underlying principles of the Constitution — namely, limited government and individual rights.
[T]he Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals… [I]t does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government… [I]t is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.
Hence, if the Republicans truly wish to demonstrate their respect for the Constitution, they must support and defend the underlying principles of individual rights and limited government. In the realm of health care, they could do so by “defunding” ObamaCare and working towards its eventual repeal.
ObamaCare is closely based on the Massachusetts system of mandatory health insurance. Such a system violates individual rights on a massive scale, forcing individuals to purchase health insurance on terms set by government bureaucrats and forcing insurance companies to offer services at prices set by the government. The end result for Massachusetts residents has been skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality medical care.
Fortunately, the core provision of ObamaCare — mandatory insurance — has been ruled unconstitutional by federal judge Henry Hudson in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. The Obama administration is appealing this ruling, and it may take years before the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately resolves this issue. Nor does Judge Hudson’s ruling block implementation of ObamaCare during the appeals process. In the meantime, the House of Representatives could demonstrate its support for the Constitution by depriving the Obama administration of any funding to implement its health plan. At present, Republicans lack sufficient votes to sustain a repeal against a presidential veto. But “defunding” ObamaCare would stall it until the GOP has a chance to win control of the Senate and White House in 2012 and finish the job.
With recent polls showing a majority of Americans supporting the outright repeal of ObamaCare, “defunding” would be a political winner for the GOP as well as a way of proving their commitment to the Constitution.
Indeed, the GOP could use “defunding” for issues beyond health care. For example, the House could vote to “defund” the EPA’s plan to perform an end-run around Congress and impose new burdensome regulations on carbon emissions. The Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse” over the executive branch. Hence, whenever the executive branch threatens to runs amok, Congress has both the legal and moral authority to rein it in.
In the 2010 midterm elections, the American people restored the Republicans to power in House of Representatives in large part because of their promise to block ObamaCare, respect the Constitution, and defend the principles of limited government. The voters have done their part. It’s time for the GOP to live up to its end of the bargain.
Will be interesting to watch United States Congressman read Article 1 section 8 of the constitution with a straight face.
I read the “Democrats” will refuse to let the Constitution be read on the House floor. I hope Rep. Allen West, a African-American who is QUALIFIED to be President, raises the cry of treason in the hall of Congress and about 3 million Americans come to Washington DC with him for a citizen’s arrest.
Lead the charge Col. West. We’re behind you. Here’s a new animated feature that shows the insanity of the Progressives. Its very funny and inspiring. http://www.marcrubin.com/hairmerica.ivnu
The GOP will face a problem or two if it should attempt a purely Constitutionalist posture. It could be summed up as follows:
“So, if it’s not in Article I, Section 8, we can’t do it, eh? I suppose we’ll have to defund the Air Force, then, right?”
We’ve drifted so far from both the philosophy and the specifics expressed in America’s great papers that finding his way back might prove impossible for any politician with an interest in being re-elected.
May I respectfully suggest you study the documents surrounding the Constitutions Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause to better understand its intent and inclusion into the Constitution.
The *defunding* the Air Force comment is irrelevant to the the language and intent Constitution and a standing military.
Now that you have, how shall I forbid it? But your comment is irrelevant.
A strict construction view of the Constitution such as mine deals with the document as it stands, not what any commentator, jurist, or Monday-morning quarterback has said about it. The words are there, plain English written to minimize ambiguity. They have public meanings; those meanings control the authorities the Constitution confers and the limitations it prescribes. The Framers themselves were scrupulous even about the placement and nature of punctuation marks.
As Thomas Sowell has noted:
I pursue this line of thought further in today’s essay at Eternity Road.
You could not be more wrong in your premise!
The framing of all laws follows the very same premise of the framing of the Constitution. Therefore, the framers of the Constitution, being a bit more wise than todays generations, knew full well they could not nor did they wish to prescribe the precise “INTENT” of the articles of the Constitution within the constitution…..the precise intent of their framing is included in their many documents of communications and deliberations held in record to this very day.
To follow your premise, we would have NO need for any lawyers or courts, for the intent of the law would be found in black and white within each law. If you were a first year law student you would know that “elements” of law do NOT specifically equate to the “intent” of the law….thus we have Supreme Courts who are supposed to define the intent of the law just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices were supposed uphold and protect the constitution based upon the language of its Articles AND the intent of the Articles and their various Sections and Sub Sections.
Like the Constitution, all legislation (law) is framed around intent that can only be found in the congressional record as opposed to being found precisely within the law and its elements. Where it is determined that the intent was, or becomes flawed, an amendment process will take place….as has been done numerous times to the constitution.
If the intent of the constitution and other laws were to be precisely included, we would NOT have an adversarial juris prudence system!
Of course that comment is as sophistic as saying Second Amendment only applies to black powder muzzle loaders.
Pretty silly to even pay that game.
As an adjunct to this, those same men who wish the Constitution read should also introduce a measure by which all Congressman are made to declare that the oath they take to uphold this country’s laws is not predicated on them liking, enjoying or agreeing with those laws but merely with obeying them and enforcing them. Those guilty of ignoring the law with selective non-enforcement should face a penalty.
Most people are full of disrespect for the law. Just look how many people speed on the highways. How many of you steal pens from work?
I hope the GOP ‘really mean it’ this time.
I expect them to actually fall far short.
Nice Article Paul,
We will see what this Congress is about very shortly. They had best adhere to the vision of the founders as articulated in th Constitution, especially a refocus on what Article 1 Section 8 meant to the men who debated, wrote and signed the document. If they bend under media pressure and deviate from the small government message sent in November, God help them. There are tens of millions of us who are past livid at how both parties have shredded the Constitution since 1900. It started with Teddy Roosevelt and accelerated with Wilson. It then went completely over the edge under the 2nd Roosevelt and has stayed there with a slight reversal under Reagan.
Those days better be over. We are finally organised. We have enormous financial resources. We have a focused sense of purpose. We demand adherence to the intent of the founders. Any deviation from principal will be met with the wrath of 10′s of millions of us.
This group of Republicans had better damn well show that they understand the messsage. The time to overthhrow the progresive welfare state that has rotted away our society and made ‘free market’ a dirty word is finally here.
Let’s see what your made of Republicans, this is your last chance.
["Let’s see what your made of Republicans, this is your last chance."]
Why must it be a contest to see what *Republicans* in Washington are made of? Seems to me its high time all *American’s* who are not socialist progressives be tested to see what they are made of.
TT,
It’s because of our republican, not democratic, form of government. The Repub reps are now in the majority and have been sent with specific instructions on what is expected. They best execute according to the requirements of their electors and sponsors or they are going to find their careers in DC to be spectacularly short and painful. We who are taxed enough already have had enough of rinos and other charlatans, and we are very angry with what the old style repubs and dems have done to our Constitution and government.
Does that answer your question?
I understand and very much appreciate your points and position! However, some appreciation must be given to realism. Over so many decades now, the “system” has become so complex, so broken and corrupted that there is no longer any simple fixes IF the people and the legislators are not willing to endure the pain and suffering that is needed to fix the [causations] of the many problems. To continue dealing with the superficial symptoms as all are doing, the problems will continue to repeat and manifest until we crash.
It is NOT upon congress to fix the problems! It is upon the shoulders of all “American’s” and how much they are willing to force and endure as the consequences of fixing the broken government.
The absolute fixes are one major and a couple minor Constitutional Amendments. The major amendment would significantly reduce the federal governments size and authority with some very unpleasant consequences for a period of about three decades during transition. The people and the States need not have any congressional approval to effect a constitutional amendment effort. That is why I challenge the people and not so much the congress to take back this great nation and turn it around. If the people have the will it shall be…if not, don’t count on the congress to do what the people will not do themselves.
Amend the Constitutions Article I, Section 8, Commerce Clause!
Paul Hsieh – Good post. I would add one more thing — Congress must rein in the Administration’s ability to legislate by regulation. For example, the EPA is writing regulations to impose the Cap part of Cap ‘n Trade which has Congress has voted against several times. This cannot stand. We cannot allow Congress to abdicate its legislative authority (as laid out in Section I of the Constitution) and Congress cannot allow the Administration to usurp that authority.
Jack,
Right you are. Congress should start by subpoening the director of the EPA to appear and answer questions on C and T and other anti business regulations that exceed the original intent of the legislation. I want the specific science that shows AGW exists. Then I want proof that it will be harmful to the planet. Good luck meeting those burdens.
After the fools who propagate this AGW tripe are exposed, the next step is to tell Obama that the EPA will be defunded if he doesn’t stop his end run socialist redistribution of wealth via regulation. I would also like an examination of the constitutionality of the original legislation while were at it. The Congress could make block grants to the states for environmental protection and let the states administer the money to protect the environment. That would be more constitutional on its face than the current scheme that wastes billions every year.
This review process needs to be applied to multiple cabinet agencies including education and energy, for starters.
We will see if the Republicans understand what they are supposed to do.
Reading the Constitution isn’t even a start with me. That’s a given. I don’t want some idiotic dog and pony show, it’s only going to make me more angry. I want results that are consistent with the founders intent, namely the restoration of liberty and a federal government that performs it’s enumerated duties, nothing more.
“I want the specific science that shows AGW exists. Then I want proof that it will be harmful to the planet. ”
I don’t.
The only thing I want from them is the specific legal authority to enact such legislation.
Absent that, all debate about the scientific merits of AGW is nothing but a red herring.
Our motto should be, “It’s the LEGALITY, stupid!”
Correct. We already had that debate. They lost. This is an end-run, re-interpreting Nixon-era legislation, because they couldn’t stand this on its own.
Very good point Mark v. However, on the path to unconstitutionality I would like the pointy headed administrators of the EPA put on public display for all to see that they adhere to a thourghly discredited theory and are wasting billions. It should cause public opinion to further erode for the left’s anti constitutional agenda.
I agree. That was the point in “The Spaghetti Strategy: Advice to Republicans” high up on the PJM blogs today. Such exposure will accomplish a number of necessary goals.
1. It will dishearten their confreres and cause bureaucratic caution to kick in.
2. It will flush out the lack of scientific validity and legal authority.
3. It will allow taxpayers to understand how idiotic regulations are made and by whom.
Cross-examination is the process by which statements are tested for truth and coherence. That is what must happen here.
Can’t disagree with that. Hit ‘em high, hit ‘em low, hit ‘em often, and hit ‘em hard. Science, law, reason, whatever we can throw at them.
That’s where Darrel Issa comes into play, he has his agenda in order and will be asking Obama’s Administration Minions to face tough scrutinization by and from deficit commissions from all angles and OBama and his minions will have to show proof of how, why , when, where our laws provide for him to give such powers to the EPA, DOE or other Bureaucratic Boondoggles that were developed by him and prior Presidents. Just because a former President might of done this or that doesn’t allow Obama to give orders to other Departments the go ahead and screw the American People without representation of the People !! It’s going to be an exciting year in congress I can’t wait to finally look forward to watching C-Span !!!
I’m not very sanguine. When some upper level media idiot says that it’s not understandable because it’s over 100 years old, you can bet that the Democrat/Socialist media will run with this idea, and have Congressional support.
And can you imagine any book on the Constitution coming out today making the New York Times Best Seller list?
Heh.
Don’t know if it will make the best-seller list, but this one is next on my reading list:
http://www.amazon.com/Ratification-People-Debate-Constitution-1787-1788/dp/0684868547
Looks very interesting.
Brings to mind the lack of competition and inability of, even a high school graduate, to debate with any effectiveness. This stems from the inability to use the mother tongue, and pertinent research, which our Congress critters demonstrate every day.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Good commentary Mr Hseih. I anticipate a very rigerous effort by the Republicans to do just as you suggest – for the first 3 month. Then we will begin hearing all of the reasons, justifications and excuses why they have failed with “we tried”. As the incommimg congressmen become comfortable in their new digs they will strive to “fit in” so they can focus on funding for their next elections. They have achieved membership in the cushiest club on the face of the earth with the goal of staying there as long as possible.
I believe it would be possible to hold them to account in your columns by a weekly update of their individual efforts to keep or avoid their pledge to the Constitution and the American citizens who put them in office. This will not be done by the MSM. Continue tracking these folks in a clear and concise manner. Furthermore provide the congressmen with speedy feedback from your readers as to their actions. Your efforts will be much appreciated and your readership will thrive. Keep this ball rolling. Good start.
All they have to do to keep their cushy jobs, is to do what we sent them there to do. If they don’t, they will find themselves back in their hometowns in two years. I hope they do that job, because time to save the Republic is growing short.
As I was saying in my blog, about Dumb-Bo cutting the legs off Congress:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/politics/white-house/2011/01/obama-ready-deploy-executive-powers-against-gop-hill
It might take another Civil War.
Thanks for this article, which identifies the critical task ahead. We need to let our congress know what we expect of them. Let’s hope they get it this time.
They should be reading the Declaration of Independence
and rehabilitating the concept of States Rights, because
when the Hard Times arrive the people will want action,
which the Feds will be incapable of providing, and power
will devolve to the states; go with the flow, Congress-
Critters, or drown in the flood.
Not only should the Constitution be read, but the Declaration of Independence too. The American people have more grievances against this government then our Founding Fathers had against King George. Our government today is by far more intrusive the the English ever were, and nobody seems to care. It is time for the Constitutional Republic to return, and this Socialist Democracy to go.
Hear! Hear! Give this comment a ‘second reading’ and ‘bring it before the assembly’.
Unlike The Constitution The Declaration of Independence has no force of law. It has historical significance but that is all.
What Jeff says is true, but the Declaration does establish the values by which we are supposed to live. And antislavery Senator from Massachusetts Charles Sumner argued that the Declaration, like the preamble to the Constitution, did have the force of law. For more on Sumner’s ideas see http://clarespark.com/2009/10/05/charles-sumner-moderate-conservative-on-lifelong-learning/. See also http://clarespark.com/2008/05/03/margoth-vs-robert-e-lee/, that has much more on Sumner. Sumner’s ideas on the American type of nationalism resemble those of Ayn Rand, cited in the Hsieh article.
So?
You asked, “so?” Whether the greatest revolutionary document has the force of law is irrelevant. What matters is the much vexed question of American exceptionalism. Otherwise known as American identity. For the detractors of America, our identity is essentially genocidal, patriarchal, ecocidal, etc. This definition is what dominates our schools and universities and much of Hollywood. So, I thought it might be helpful to mention some great Americans who believed in limited government as laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution. What is your problem, snork?
Revolutions are carried out with weapons, not words,
and ‘When weapons are drawn, the Law falls silent.’
That is the worst case; Much more likely is a legal,
non-violent refusal by the states to implement the
federal laws (more likely regulations) which will be
used to impede growth and tax away wealth from the
prosperous states.
Ah, nulification! We need a Constitutional Amendment that if two thirds of the State legislatures declare a federal statute to be null and void, that statute is repealed. We also need an Article 5 convention to bring that amendment into being. If you want to restore the meaning and power of the 9th and 10th Amendments, nullification is your surest route.
So! You think the ‘revolution’ the MSM has engaged in for the last 10 or more years, and the most influential reason Obama was elected, is being fought WITHOUT weapons?
Money is one of the most effective weapons; Otherwise Soros would be impotent, and Democrats could not get elected.
Within 30 days we will know whether the Republicans “get it” or whether it’s third party time.
There’s another batch of constitutional issues around habeas corpus, rendition, and torture which need to be addressed.
It’s a lot safer to oppose mandatory insurance and excessive regulation if you can trust the government to not imprison you indefinitely whenever it wants to.
Nancy,
I agree as long as we are talking about US citizens. As soon as we are discussing non US citizens who are captured sans uniform on the battlefield, then they are the lowest form of human trash and should be treated accordingly. The scum at Gitmo are treated way too nicely for my tastes. They should be held until the war ends.
Sorry, but that’s a passion which is way too expensive.
We’ve already seen the legal abuses done to enemy combatants start to spread to American citizens. It’s crucial to not set people outside the law.
If the government is free to do what it wants to non-citizens, it’s an incentive to make citizenship conditional.
Nancy,
There is an entire body of law that controls warfare known as the Geneva Convention. Enemy combatants are covered by the convention and are appropriately treated to low rung status. Warfare is conducted outside of the bounds of the US constitution once war is declared. The US has agreed to the convention. The scum that aided in the 9/11 attacks, the Kybar Towers bombing, the Cole attack, Beirut etc are commiting acts of war against the US. They are entitled to all they have coming under the convention, nothing more. US citizens are entitled to more.
Your reliance on civilian criminal law is misplaced in time of war. Remember they declared war against us in 1998. Al Quade chose the rules they wanted to play the game by. They will have to live with their choice.
Part of the problem with the “no trial” approach is that people who aren’t part of Al Quaeda get imprisoned, and whether they’re guilty of anything doesn’t get checked.
It is an awful thing when one HAS to read the Consitution to the democrats. It shows how skewered their perceptions have slowly become. It is my hope those read words will somehow reach them and show them the reality of their actions. It is also their Heritage, if they will accept it. The greatness of America was built upon it’s Constitution.
If they can not see, if they refuse to listen to We The People, they are indeed very foul dogs. Beware.
DEFEND is not the only word in the OATH that Congressmen, Senators, and elected public “servants” say on accepting public office.
What about UPHOLD? Haven’t seen much of that within living memory.
Always hedged with well the world has changed. Well the document wasn’t meant to be really a limit to the government. Well what they (Americans) don’t know can’t hurt them. OR as Obama has represented THEY WON … so they’re not bound by the Law of the Land ?? except as they choose.
As the incumbent Chief Executive, “Constitutional scholar” par excellence deems the US Constitution defective and flawed, it follows that an oath to a “defective” document is not bounden, is therefore not “relevant” SO what’s all the excitement ?
Nice ploy, great publicity to read that document. Surprise surprise it’s
contained in a fraction of number of pages of the socalled “healthcare mandate”. So shouldn’t take too much time and effort to read. Perhaps even more than once. AND maybe even to understand the words as they are written in the language of the NEW Nation, American English NOT legalese.
Fortunately perhaps for the American People, Congressmen and Senators don’t have to decide whether it’s “constitutional”.
The most frustrating thing about the political climate is how far we have moved from the original intention of the founders as specified in the U.S. Constitution. Like Dr. Hsieh, I hope the House Republicans, having been given a mandate from the electorate, will move us in the direction of having the government limited to performing its proper function according to the Constitution: Protection of individual right.
If they don’t defund Obamacare there will be hell to pay.
Everybody knows little lenin will veto the repeal and there is no chance the Senate will uphold it.
I read the “Democrats” will refuse to let the Constitution be read on the floor. They threatened a fillibuster. If that happens,I hope Rep Allen West, an African-American qualified to be president leads the charge!
This hilarious short animated feature exposes the insanity of the Progressives with BIG TIME HUMOR. http://www.marcrubin.com/hairmerica.ivnu Its time to laugh the traitors into submission.
The GOP should have it read and then have it posted somewhere in the chamber in large enough print so it can be seen by the congresspersons.
It’s pretty basic to know that when you constantly harp on some issue, you had better follow through.
Interesting article indeed; but one that clearly picks & chooses its issues for a discussion of constitutionality.
#5 Samizdat: “the time to overthrow the progressive welfare state that has rotted away our society and made ‘free market’ a dirty word is finally here…..” So, would you include social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits as part of what you call the welfare state?
Here in the West, ranchers can run their stock on federal public lands for a fraction of the market rate charged to graze cattle on private land; a nice subsidy from the taxpayers. How is that practice; one among literally hundreds of taxpayer subsidies for business; a functioning of the ‘free market?’
Samizdat: “They had best adhere to the vision of the founders as articulated in the Constitution……” The Constitution gives to Congress the power to declare war. So, what are we doing fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, other places without a declaration of war? What would have been the reaction of the far right if Obama had decided to follow the Constitution immediately upon taking office and suspend all these military actions as being unconstitutional? Just askin’ .
SteveB/Colorado,
Excellent questions all. I tend to agree with the thrust of your argument. I believe that the majority of the founders would find many of the programs you identified offensive to the limited scope of Article 1 Section 8. The states can do many of these things if their constitutions allow it, but the Feds have acted outside of the Founders intent for well over 100 years. If we want the Federal government doing those things you identified, then there needs to be an articulation of the power via an amendment. You are probably correct that the appropriation of state land in many instances is offensive to Federal power; states like Alaska and Utah have had some of their very best land appropriated by the Feds. I further believe that the government resolutions that empowered Bush to go to war offend the sensibility intended by the Founders, we certainly should have declared war and empowered the Commander in Chief to act constitutionally. I believe Articles of war would have passed by a wide margin against the Taliban and probably passed against Iraq too.
It is the failure to recognise the requirements of the document that have gotten us into the state we are in today where the Feds have excess power and the states and people have been neutered. We now suffer the tyrany of the nanny state and are bankrupt to boot. We need to reinvigorate the procedural requirements for spending our money and declare null and void a good deal of Supreme Court common law re what the Constitution means. That means amendments that declare the concepts articulated in cases such as Wickard V Filburn to be a violation of the Commerce Clause and restrict interpretation and expansion of the 14th Amendment, which the Federal courts have turned into an unintended hydra.
Those are my thoughts. The rule of law is being torn assunder and we are all suffering for it. Restoration is still possible.
Our citizens need to be better stewards of their own power.
WOW! Last I checked, the Constitution mandates the government (the people) maintain (employ) a standing military. What is the problem with the government (people) taking care of those whom they employed to defend and serve our nations security interests in the military? I do think there should be some distinction in benefits for those having served in combat vs those who haven’t and did not retire from service. There is no intelligent comparison in military benefits from the government to those of medicare/medicaid, SSI, food stamps, etc., provided to the population at large. Social Security on the other hand can be debated I supose but, it was originally set up as one paying into a program with a *return* on investment much like investing in any bond market for a stable low risk return….but, a debate for another day.
From a family of many generations of farmers and ranchers near your State of CO, I do NOT support the federal government holding range/forest lands belonging to the States and its people. Likewise, I do NOT subscribe to the federal government subsidizing any forms of private sector commerce to include the vast array of agriculture.
One either stands on the fundamental principles of the Traditional American values, its Constitution and private sector capitalism or they don’t!
T.T.: the lands you reference were federal lands before Western states actually became states. Here in Colorado, that is why a section of each township was given to the state for support of schools. Lands not homesteaded, patented for mining claims, etc. remain federal land.
Re your comment about veterans benefits, I agree that long term benefits should be reserved only for those who served in combat. I’m OK with giving every vet a start back into civilian life with school/college grants, etc.
Steve….OK also had (has) many state land grants. Most were for schools and some for state and municipal government use. I don’t have quite the same frame of mind against States controlling some of the peoples land as they are always negotiating transfer of such lands when the people demand such. On the other hand, I think that the federal government taking control of States land and natural resources is simply unconstitutional and needs to be reversed. For crying out loud, the federal government still controls so many rivers as navigatable rivers that one would find hard to take a canoe down. Why the federal government must own States land and resources is beyond me!
["Second, they’ve promised that every new bill will contain a statement citing the constitutional authority for the proposed law."]
Now there’s the new joke of the year!
That is akin to saying…”though the house sits on cliffs edge and on a sand foundation, we’re going to make sure we follow the building codes beyond those two points, in finishing the re-build.”
Maybe deal with the true underlying causations…say, treat the cancer and the symptoms of the cancer will dissipate?
I agree that it is likely to degenerate into a dog and pony show signifying nothing.
I want results that limit federal power and will accept nothing less. Lack of courage and execution will result in an unpleasant end to a short political career via primary challenge in 2012. The old rules are gone.
I hope Congress people are visiting this site. I gave support to more than 30 candidates this year and can support primary opponents just as easily twelve months from now. There are millions of contributors who did exactly what I did and the Republican party knows this.
Sadly, it will be a dog & pony show so long as the congress ignores the underlying causations of the problems born over the past many decades and deals with only the superficial symptoms. Until a majority of American citizens stand up and say how much pain they are willing to endure from taking a blow torch to the government, it will remain a circus until we crash and burn leaving no choices of what the nations people must endure.
How much shall we bet that at least one Democrat Congresscritter will be absent for the reading of the Constitution? (For the most innocent of reasons, of course.)
If there are any such, I want to see a list of names.
You are overstating what has been promised in the new rules.
You state: “Second, they’ve promised that every new bill will contain a statement citing the constitutional authority for the proposed law.”
What the new rules actually say is “A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor submits for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution. The statement shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that purpose and be made publicly available in electronic form by the Clerk.”
The difference is very important. First, the citation of authority won’t be written into the law. What this means is that if there is any “Judicial review” of the law, the Judiciary will have no clue where Congress thought it got it’s authority to act, and the Judiciary will be free to find authority anywhere in the Constitution, or apply any existing precedents, or even just make something up.
There is a big difference between every bill having a citation of authority to act within the text of the bill and not having that. The new rules, while a slight improvement, still fall well short of including a citation of authority in new legislation.
If the GOP does not walk the walk now then they never will and the only solution is armed revolution. If neither party is going to listen and the Courts refuse to side with the people and the Constitution ( The Kelo and CO2 as a pollutant decisions come to mind) then what are We the People to do? Resign ourselves to living in indentured servitude? No thanks. I was born into freedom and intend to die in freedom. Somebody in DC has to stand up and realize there is more to life than being reelected every two/four/six years….
The bitterness and cynicism expressed here is understandable but…
The new crop of Republicans is the group that needs empowering if they are to withstand the barrage of “You can’t do that” “Bipartisanship is necessary” “Senior members have priority” etc.
The new crop needs to feel the hot breath of the voters on their necks every single day. Nothing nasty but steady surveillance with praise for standing up and suggestions for improvement when they back down. They need training so they understand that the voters mean business. The voters have it in their power to make sure they don’t fail.
Will the GOP Walk the Walk on the Constitution?
The Tea Party will. The est of them, your joking, right?
My proof that they won’t?
Where are the friging jobs? Wake up America
hmmmmmmm……..I wonder if any one is paying attention to the new word congresscritter?
I hope so.
After they read the Constitution, they will have to get rid of the Fed, and secure the border from the illegal alien invasion.
Please hurry.
I don’t care what O’Reily says. Put forth that repeal bill of Obamacare. Let the Senate not pass it. Make them accountable. Congressman, bring your camera phones to the chamber. Record what the democrats are doing. Put it up on Youtube, again, and again; each time that youtube attempts to take it down to cover for their fellow travelers. Do the media’s job if they aren’t going to. If you get us the video, or the audio, we’ll be happy fill their inboxes and shut down their switchboards. We’ll broadcast it over every form of media we can get our hands on. We the people just need you to shine a light on the endemic corruption.
Don’t be afraid when the democrats and their media echo chambers scream like apoplectic children. They are showing you their true colors. They are spoiled children who are experiencing accountability for the first time. Let them scream their “I hate you.” You do what’s right because it’s right, not because you’re afraid of ridicule. Do you part and we’ll try and get you some like-minded Senators in 2012.
Very nice article, Paul.
Sure, they can read it. Then, most of them will do what the previous ones have done.
Congressmen and Senators all become wealthy after just a few years in office. They get all kinds of inside info, and it is completely legal; Not legal for us mind you, but for them. Example: Harry Reid has been a public servant all his life? How did he become worth $12M?
They sell their votes. It is institutionalized bribery. Folks know they do it for campaign contributions, but most are not aware of the actual insider trading bribery.
This is not about serving your country, it is about becoming wealthy once you are in office.
Any questions?
Regarding Roy’s post… The T.E.A. party won’t. If they do, and the rest of the republicans in the house go along (which they all should) there won’t be any foreign aid, HUD will be defunded, Dept. of Energy will be defunded, Dept. of Education will be defunded. A lot more federal agencies and programs will be defunded. I sure hope I’m wrong about them not following the constitution but I’ll bet I’m not.
If their smart they will follow the Constitution. How many smart politicians do we have in Washington and when was the last time you actually saw a smart politician????
Tea party must keep the pressure on, silent majority keep the pressure on. Americans keep the pressure on-change will happen.
NO
next question?
If, in the Congress can treat the 9th and 10th Amendments like they don’t exist, what is there to say that they can’t eventually treat other parts of the Constitution like they don’t exist, even including election of the president. What’s in the “living document” concept that precludes a president from simply dedciding not to step down at the end of his term.
Blah, Blah, Blah
Get off of your constitutional high horse. For a bunch of people who claim to support the Constitution, they sure were reluctant to support the First Amendment rights of Muslims who wanted to build a community center near the WTC site. Don’t be so quick to anger when people are trying to exercise the freedoms that you claim to cherish so much. If you really love your freedoms, you should understand why people want to exercise theirs.
Concerning the Constitution: stop picking candidates that know nothing about constitutional law. If you care so much about the Constitution, why are you listening to Sarah Palin, who could not have been more wrong when she claimed that the First Amendment protected her from criticism by the media? When running for vice president, she didn’t know what the constitution said about the vice presidency. How about Christine O’Donnell, who couldn’t name any recent Supreme Court cases last week? These are the people you chose to represent you and your respect for the US Constitution?
If you want small government, then actively support same-sex marriage rights. Don’t want the government telling you what to do? Then you shouldn’t want the government telling you whom you can and can’t marry. Small government does not regulate personal decisions about whom you spend your life with, and if you are serious about small government, then you should be out there protesting for gay marriage.
If Congress is overstepping it’s powers to regulate commerce with its healthcare mandate, then get out there and support the legalization of marijuana. Attorney General Holder recently stated that if California legalizes the sale of marijuana, then he will use federal power to prosecute marijuana users for possession of the drug. This should strike you as a gross abuse of federal power in violation of state rights. Come out against Holder’s threat right now and get ready to protest if he follows through with it.
Stop claiming that you have the Founding Fathers on your side, while assailing the educated elite. The Founders were the educated elite. They were all a part of the American Philosophical Society. Many of them were knowledgeable of physics and calculus–the cutting edge sciences of their day. Everyone knows that Benjamin Franklin was a scientist. So, stop the anti-science, anti-intellectual agenda. The Founders would never have stood for that.
Admit it, you want another Bill Clinton. Sure, the Tea Party is nostalgic for Reagan, but he oversaw a large expansion of the deficit. Government borrowing started to decline under Bush Sr. but the deficit saw massive decline, leading to surpluses under Clinton. G. W. Bush turned those surpluses back into a gaping deficit. So, why do you vote Republican? Get over Reagan and admit that your party shouldn’t have tried to impeach the most fiscally conservative president in thirty years.
Two agendas you ask us to stop—anti-intellectualism and anti-scientism—are a serious part of the general problem stemming from the left. Both, in today’s intellectual climate, lead to atheism (or the other way round!), which I am certain would upset most of the Founders.
This atheistic climate then alienates the majority of the Christian and Religious population from these anti-religious types, and from their opinions as well. Thus, you are deliberately stirring the religious/anti-religious pot with every word, and disguising the fact that you are anti-religious.
You are specifically asking hundreds of millions Christians to ignore the tenets, traditions and customs of their religion, including the Word of God as laid down in the Bible. Altogether, it is a rather cheeky thing for you to try for such a handful of non-believers.
To make things worse, as if that is possible, you are in effect supporting a loose-leaf notebook kind of constitution, where its contents can be added to or subtracted from at will, mainly to accomodate situations that violate religious tenets. So you have here a twofer: anti-Biblical and anti-Constitutional ideas, and, as an added twist, even Socialistic ideas.
I wish you luck.
Actually I’m a Presbyterian Protestant Christian. I honestly think Jesus Christ would support the health care bill. For someone’s entire life work was about healing the poor by making the blind see, curing leprosy, and waking up the dead, I can’t imagine Jesus would turn it’s back on the most unfortunate people.
JL, your response is to evoke Jesus in defense of the Obamacare bill. Obviously I have no quarrel with that concept, but there are far better ways to achieve fair healthcare than the current bill, and without sending the economy to bankruptcy (in which case, healthcare stops altogether fairly soon now).
The grand opinion regarding the Muslim Center was that it was perfectly lawful to do, but in quite poor taste considering what happened a few blocks away.
Marriage is a religious, legal, and government recognized state between a man and a woman. You must be quite willing to ignore the four chapters in the Bible regarding homosexuals, and to ignore tradition and custom as well. I would speculate that Jesus would heal this genetic affliction were he to be present. I see no reason to sanctify same sex marriage so long as there is legal contract support available that satisfies all of the conditions covered by marriage.
I am in great agreement with you that we should compel candidates for office to be highly conversant with constitutional and Civil law, and the judicial tinkering as well that has been going on for a century.
Take Roe vs Wade for instance. Are you happy with the killing of over 60 million proto-people since RvW was enacted? Abortion is in my mind a most unChristian act, since life begins at conception, doesn’t the Bible say that?
I haven’t time to develop here why I believe we must be firmly in the anti-intellectual camp. Suffice it to say that I believe I can show that virtually every important guidance from so-called public intellectuals and elites since 1900 has had most unfortunate results.
AS to being anti-science, I am a scientist that deplores the subversions of the truth to aggrandize some set of scientists or to influence government to walk down dangerous paths without sufficiently hard evidence. I am anti-bad science, which is rampant today, viz AGW. I believe that the Founders would agree with me 100% that science is being used improperly today for political and financial gain. Two of the main thrusts of science lead to atheism: Darwinism and cosmology, and even some theoretical mathematicians are guilty.
Your entire screed is looking backwards in time when it should be addressing what to do now. The sins of the past are on all sides, and we are all going to pay for them, too. We have a national debt of enormous proportions, and it makes no sense at all to continue policies and legislation that only increases the debt outrageously. We are mortgaging our grandchildren’s way of life, and that is a huge and UnChristian sin.
Kindly explain how the First Amendment protects the “rights” of Mohammadeans — or even people — to build a “community center”?
I guess to you all Muslims are Mohammedans. I see and respect your point as I’ve debated with my friends and family. I live in NYC and to be honest with you I think it’s a shame that we are closing in the tenth anniversary of 911 and construction of the new World Trade Center is no where near.
Excellent article Paul. It is time for the Republicans to stand on principle rather than selling our country down the drain. They have the backing of the American people but do they have the courage? We will see.
They have been talking about some rules being unconstitutional for months so they had better not chicken out now.
Great article! I could not agree more fully with Paul Hsieh here. We must encourage the GOP to walk the walk, and hold their feet to the fire if they don’t.
It’ll be interesting to see how they respond when the Dems–as they inevitably do–play the pity card, e.g. “But what about the…X?” Where X can be the poor, the children, the uninsured, the unemployed, etc. ad nauseam. That is where the GOP has historically folded, because they cannot uphold the *morality* of capitalism and individual rights.