Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House (never done before)

Washington Post ^ | 12/29/10 | Philip Rucker and Krissah Thompson

[Libloather]

Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House
By Philip Rucker and Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 29, 2010; 4:53 PM

When Republicans take over next week, they will do something that apparently has never been done before in the 221-year history of the House of Representatives.

They will read the Constitution aloud.

And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the legislator who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed law.

Call it the tea party-ization of Congress.

"It appears that the Republicans have been listening," said Jeff Luecke, a sales supervisor and tea party organizer in Dubuque, Iowa. "We're so far away from our founding principles that, absolutely, this is the very, very tip of the iceberg. We need to talk about and learn about the Constitution daily."

**SNIP**

The reading of the Constitution will occur Jan. 6, one day after the swearing in of Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio). The 4,543-word document, including all 27 amendments, could be read aloud in just 30 minutes.

[Danae]

It’s about time. Now, lets see if any of them has to balls to walk the talk.

We are watching.

[devolve]

[1010RD]

Yes, in 2008. So if you wanted to depress and/or alter that vote would you take the time to scare that demographic about conservative attempts to return medicine to liberty and free markets?

My point is the progressives are and have been on the march. We’d better get out ahead of them. We need a majority in the Senate, but that happens not on a national level, but a state level.

We need to hold and strengthen our majority in Congress. That’s on the local level. It’s a broad front, but 300,000 informed, trained and active liberty loving FReepers can do a lot.

I wasn’t playing generational politics, but simply pointing out some of the obscure array against us - we need to be inside their OODA - faster, clearer, harder - Obama must go, the Senate must be won and we must hold the House - and, in the long run 2 out of 3 of those for a generation or two if we’re to regain our country.

[Lucky2]

Tentative excitment ping. Let’s pray these people keep their promises and stop the maddness.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

As soon as the (R)s find something that they want badly enough that unfortunately doesn’t quite squeak through the Constitutional hole in the needle, they’ll forget all about these new “rules”.

[NonValueAdded]

Nice idea, but ...

Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause

is all we'll see

[little jeremiah]

Yes, exactly. Moaning because everything isn’t happening all at once, and/or predicting defeat, is not how wars are won.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I am deeply saddened by that clip. I’ve always loved that episode and the ending. I loved it than as now.

I’m saddened that no modern show could ever express such patriotism in America and therefore, reminded once again how far we have fallen from being a moral, informed nation.

Not your fault. Thanks for a great reminder of the America I once knew. At least I got to live in it. I grieve for the kids born in 2050. They will never know even the over-regulated freedom I knew in the 20th century.

[Windflier]

Yes, exactly. Moaning because everything isn’t happening all at once, and/or predicting defeat, is not how wars are won.

I'm telling you...even at FR, you've got to be careful about choosing your squad-mates. Given the commentary around here, I'd have to guess that at least a quarter would turn tail and run if the SHTF.

I've also found that those who are active in local politics or the Tea Parties, complain the least. I guess they're too busy getting the job done to whine.

[Quix]

SOUNDS WONDERFUL.

Maybe it’s because the GOP globalist stooges know it’s too late to make a huge difference.

Still . . . God has done more with smaller beginnings. We can pray it has a big impact for good.

[justiceseeker93]

What you are quoting is the presidential oath, which is in the Constitution itself. But the oath taken by House members, though somewhat similar in terms of supporting the Constitution, is not in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any specific authority given for Congress to repeal, although it's been done quite a number of times throughout American history, presumably on the assumption that the legislation being repealed concerned matters within the scope of Congess' constitutional power, and therefore the repeal was also within that scope of power.

But (de facto) repeals of earlier legislation deemed to be unconstitutional have traditionally been done through court decisions, not through Congress. So there could be a problem citing a particular clause in the Constitution as the basis for repealing, say, ObamaCare, because ObamaCare itself cannot be supported on any Constitutional basis. There's the dilemma.

[bgill]

Is this for real? We can pray it’s so but in this day and time so much that makes sense is false and so much that’s outlandish is true.

[bgill]

What about all the unrelated pork that’s added to the bills?

[MV=PY]

I believe I understand the logic of your point. It’s fascinating.

Still, I would think that repealing Obamacare is only one of many possible approaches.

Couldn’t the congress simply amend Obamacare and effectively null it without declaring the original legislation unconstitutional? Or replace it with something else?

Another approach would be to simply refuse to fund it. I would guess that would be within Congress’ scope of authority (obviously this would create a mess because the law would still stand).

[justiceseeker93]

Of course, all these possible alternative actions you mentioned to cripple ObamaCare will have a positive end result for the country as a whole.

The bottom line is this: the requirement to state a constitutional basis for every bill introduced, though it sounds good at first glance, may have undesirable consequences in certain instances.

[potlatch]

Thank you

[Impy]

Interesting idea, but I doubt it will cause too many in the House to think twice about introducing their legislation. They will merely continue to stretch the "interstate commerce" clause and the "general welfare" clause, etc., beyond recognition. It may slow down pork and earmarks, however.

I agree with your analysis. The idea sounds great but they'll just abuse the aforementioned clauses. Maybe it will make some people think though.

Furthermore, there might be a dilemma if new legislation was introduced to repeal previous legislation which the current congressman might regard as unconstitutional, e.g., ObamaCare. What constitutional basis would he cite for repeal?

Obviously repeal of any legislation would carry this same 'problem'. I don't think this policy could be applied to repealing stuff, only new legislation.