[justiceseeker93]

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.

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.

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?

[edcoil]

“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.”

I believe the oath of office contains this already - no one there is worth their word.

[SunkenCiv]

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.

Thanks justiceseeker93. The whole Congress has been listening -- "Taxed Enough Already" is what shook up the political life of this country, and the Bush tax cuts were extended in entire.

[MV=PY]

I believe all of them would be obliged to repeal an unconstitutional law, e.g.:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Isn't citing their obligation to repeal sufficient? It's part of the constitution.

[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.