Posted on 03/18/2010 5:05:02 PM PDT by Xottamoppa
As a rule I oppose most constitutional amendments, believing that most of our problems stem not from the way the Constitution was written and stands, but from ignoring it. That said, the Founders themselves allowed for amendment, so one can't dismiss the value of the flexibility. What would it take to start the ball rolling for a constitutional amendment that states, in essence:
"The House of Representatives shall initiate no bill that does not spectify from its outset the exact Article and Section of the United States Constitution which enumerates and authorizes the proposed legislation as a legitimate constitutional function and delegated power of the General Government."
The purpose of this amendment is not to change the Constitution, per se, but to force Washington to adhere to it as it already stands. By demanding that every bill be required by law to state chapter-and-verse authority from the Constitution before being introduced, we would at least force representatives to consult the Constitution more frequently.
Additional force may be needed. We might add the clause:
"The Senate shall investigate, explore and validate the constitutional claim of each bill proposed by the House of Representatives in a written report made public before initiating any debate of the merits of said legislation."
To be followed, of course, by:
"The President shall investigate, explore and validate the constitutional claim(s) of each bill issuing from the Congress in a written report made public before affixing his signature."
With radio and television today, surely common sense proposals like this could quickly gain the 3/4 support needed to rein in the federal government with the help of patriots.
We have got to hold the feet of these people to our Constitution.
Yes and no. We have a Chief Justice and supreme court, but they’ve slept through most of the 20th century and appear to be sleeping soundly through the present nightmarish travesty on Capitol hill. The purpose of roping ol’ POTUS into the mix is to underline the antiquated concept of checks and balances, to emphasize that the Executive Branch has a co-equal responsibility to ensure the constitutionality of any legislation signed without passing the buck to the Court and, above all, to promote all the gridlock we can achieve to prevent any actual governance from occurring. Jefferson noted, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government”. While I agree, I’ve always thought he was being redundant.
To answer your specific question, the president should “investigate, explore and validate” “all by himself”. It doesn’t take that long to read the Constitution-—the only place to look for constitutionality. The idea is to compel each branch to derive their just powers once more from the consent of the governed as enumerated in the document they refuse to otherwise consult.
If the President is too busy to verify the constitutionality of a bill before he signs it, he’s too busy. Passing bills too long to read, signing laws without bothering to check their legality and outsourcing responsibility to the snoozing Court has gotten us this far. Yes, it would (hopefully) wind up in the Supreme Court, as you say. Which is why it’s unnecessary to require that in the amendment. That achieves the aim of bringing all three branches face-to-face with the law of the land.
i was with you till that last two words; “strong leadership” is exactly what the Founders feared. The People were never meant to be led by government; only protected from foreign invaders.
Everybody is missing the point. You’re still talking about the 20th century paradigm where the people sit on their hands and wish government would follow the Constitution. I’m operating in the new paradigm where the People aren’t asking any more. We are telling them what they may and may not do.
They work for us, remember. Until every citizen is willing to demand his rights, it’s all academic. Our Founding Fathers didn’t ask for their liberty, they demanded it-—and took it when it was not granted.
Explicitly include that there be no appropriations bill in support of other than those functions defined in article 1 section 8 or in direct support of the functioning of congress, either.
I’m sick to death of my money getting taken, skimmed, and then used to bribe one constituency or another, ACLU, ACORN, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.