Enumerated Powers Act Seeks to Limit Role of Federal Government

Mens News Daily ^ | June 26, 2003 | Jimmy Moore

[Leatherneck_MT]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and five Republican co-sponsors are pushing a bill in Congress that would require every new law created to specify which part of the U.S. Constitution it derives its power from.

The Enumerated Powers Act, or HR 384, seeks a closer look at the issue of federalism, or the role of the national government in creating laws outside of its constitutional authority.

The Constitutional Authority clause of the Enumerated Powers Act states that "each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."

[Jhoffa_]

Hey man, late is better than never, right?

I would LOVE to see some of the "creative" answers they come up with for the press and during re-election debates..

[Chairman Fred]

Sorry, but I'm not into preemptive surrender. Let's at least get them on the record. But my Congressobject is Susan "I can't spell" Davis (I once got a flyer from her chief supporters, the NEA, that spelled her name "Suan Davis") and my Seniletors are DiFi and Babs "Hillary's in-law" Boxer. Not much help here.

[Jhoffa_]

I want to see everyone, from congress right up to the President look sign off on this and say: "Um, yeah.. that's Constitutional alright.. It's in there"

Remember how they shot Dick Armey down on CFR over the exact, same thing? ("no part of this bill may violate the US Constitution")

They are scared to death of this kind of thing. They know it can only mean trouble if they exceed their Constitutional boundaries.

[Uncle Miltie]

This effort is irrelevant, when the Supremes RULE as they wish without regard to the Constitution.

All Hail the Supremes. Bow down before your new RULERS.

[DoughtyOne]

Let's just say I'm sick and tired of watching dems go back to seek redress on issues, and failing to see others who will go nameless do the same. I agree that this approach is better than nothing, but we are so far removed from what our Constitution stands for, that it makes much less sense to approach this now.

We have stood on a table. We have allowed our leaders to put a noose around our necks. We have watched as they removed three legs of the table as we balanced there. Then they knocked the top off the table and there we are balancing dangerously on the end of the last leg of the table. At this point we say, "You're going to have to justify kicking that final leg out!"

LMAO, hell we'll fall off before they have to.

Klamath Falls is still an issue. The Department of Education is still and issue. Big government programs like free medication coverage is still an issue. Holy cow, does it never end? Even at these levels our nation is doomed unless we undo. Just stoping the advance isn't an option any longer.

[Jhoffa_]

I agree..

But it's one more tool we can use.

And they hate it, look at the way they shot Armey out of the saddle over it.

That's all the motivation I need to support this.

[DoughtyOne]

Well I have to admit I'm just p.o.ed over other matters, so it's influencing my comments here. Of course you are right. I'm an thoroughly disgusted with our nation's leadership at this point.

[Charles Henrickson]

The powers that are given to the federal government are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, or enumerated. The specific responsibilities of the federal government are provided in that document. Any activity that is not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to perform is reserved for the states, as specified in the Tenth Amendment. "Respecting the Tenth Amendment is the first way to ensure that the genius of the Constitution and its division of power between the national government, the states, and the people continues to guide our nation," remarked Rep. Shadegg. . . . The five co-sponsors of the bill are Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), Rep. George R. Nethercutt (R-WA), Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

This is exactly right. This is precisely what constitutional conservatism means. This is what I believe in and support. This is at the heart of what I understand Free Republic to stand for.

Therefore I do not give this bill much of a chance. The federal government has grown so enormous; there are so few true conservatives even in the Republican Party (I vote Republican only because they are less liberal than the Democrats); so many Amercians are content with the status quo; and almost no one knows or understands or agrees with what the Constitution actually says . . . that even if this bill passes (I'm not holding my breath), it could be easily circumvented (via the wrongly used "general welfare" or interstate commerce escape clauses).

Tenth Amendment constitutional conservatism would mean: no Medicare; no Social Security; no federal spending or powers in education, health, welfare, pensions, wealth redistribution, etc. etc. etc. It has taken us 70 years (since FDR in 1933) to get this far into this mess. I would be happy if we could get out of it in 70 years. But I don't see it happening.

[TLBSHOW]

thanks and it was well worth reading.

[TheDon]

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[IncPen]

Have you heard of this?

[shootist]

bump

[Sabertooth]

This a giant waste of time designed to appeal to people who can't think.

How many times do the Justices have to rule against the clear meaning of the words in the constitution before you figure out

The Law is whatever the judges say it is.

Not a waste at all. While you accurately describe the reality of our judicial system, you neglect to address that until a judicial ruling, the Law is whatever a Legislature and Executive think it should be. Legislators and Executives have to stand for re-election, and are accountable to the public in a way that judges generally aren't.

Legislators swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but this obligation is often forgotten because we've gotten into the bad habit of thinking of the judiciary as the sole arbiter of Constitutionality. Requiring legislators to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution on which they justify their legislation would create a trail of accountability as to their performance of their oaths. The Constitutional rationale behind this or that piece of legislation would be subject to scrutiny not only by the electorate, but also by the Executive and Judicial branches. It would also, however, create trails of accountability for the other two branches, as their signings or rulings would be viewed in light of the Constitutional rationale put forth by the Legislature.

Will the entire electorate pay attention to the details? Probably not, but some certainly will, and I would venture that it would be more than now currently do so. Opportunities for more accountability from our government to a greater portion of the electorate strike me as something other than a waste of time.

[Eastbound]

Bump for putting the spotlight in dark places.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with you.

[Ken H]

This would be a worthless law.

Congress passes worthless laws and resolutions all the time.

Who will decide if a law does come from the stated part of the constitution? Why the courts that is who.

Yes, but shouldn't Congress be responsible and pass legislation within the bounds of the Constitution as it is written?

IOW, Shouldn't Congress and the President make their own judgements about the constitutionality of a law before passing and signing it in the first place?

And what would a liberal court rule about a law they did not like? You got it right. Any law the judges did not like they would overturn because it did not descend from the constitution. And any law they did like would come from their favorite penumbra of the constitution.

That's true whether they pass this law or not.

This a giant waste of time designed to appeal to people who can't think.

That's what you say!

How many times do the Justices have to rule against the clear meaning of the words in the constitution before you figure out

The Law is whatever the judges say it is.

True, so why not urge Congress to be more mindful about the Constitution before passing stupid laws, which often end up in the USSC?

[Ken H]

(I blame Italians for making post 36 confusing)

Repost, your words in bold:

This would be a worthless law.

Congress passes worthless laws and resolutions all the time.

Who will decide if a law does come from the stated part of the constitution? Why the courts that is who.

Yes, but shouldn't Congress be responsible and pass legislation within the bounds of the Constitution as it is written?

IOW, shouldn't Congress and the President make their own judgements about the constitutionality of a law before passing and signing it?

And what would a liberal court rule about a law they did not like? You got it right. Any law the judges did not like they would overturn because it did not descend from the constitution. And any law they did like would come from their favorite penumbra of the constitution.

That's true whether they pass this law or not.

This a giant waste of time designed to appeal to people who can't think.

So you say!

How many times do the Justices have to rule against the clear meaning of the words in the constitution before you figure out

The Law is whatever the judges say it is.

True, so why not urge Congress to be more mindful about the Constitution before passing questionable laws, which often end up before the USSC?

[4CJ]

Considering over half of your own party doesn't bother with the document anymore, how exactly are you planning to get this to pass?

What's that saying about a snowball's chance ...? As much as I think this is a fantastic idea, it should have something similar with it: "Every law shall relate to but one subject, which shall be expressed in the title. Amendments not pertaining to that specific title CANNOT be included. Appropriations shall specify the EXACT amount of each appropriation and the explicit purpose(s) for which it is made; after passage no additional compensation or renumeration shall be appropriated.'

Of course, it may as well include "All your base are belong to us" as well.

[SevenDaysInMay]

This should also include all judicial and SCOTUS rulings, with reiteration that Congress hold review of Scotus rulings, pursuant to our Constitution.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

My guess would be most would say The Supreme Court of The US since they seem to make it up as we go along.