Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House

[mudplanet]

Source: Washington Post

"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."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122901402.html?hpid=topnews

---

It'll be the first time most of them have read it (the audio book version of the Constitution).

I'd imagine a lot of them are going to be really surprised and angry by some of the things that are in it.

For example, that it's up to the courts to decide, ultimately, if a law is constitutional. That much US law (most) originates in English Common Law and precedent and that the Constitution is only invoked if someone believes that law violates the Constitution.

It's a good thing.

Maybe, after reading it (or at least, listening to it read aloud) someone will finally tell them that Obama is a constitutional scholar and may actually know more about it than they do.

[Arkana]

1. I hope Obama attends

so that he can be there while they try to read about the 3/5 rule. Then, when they do, he can yell "THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT ME, YOU FUCKING ASSCLOWNS!"

I expect baggers will learn something about the document they claim to worship and revere.

[Pirate Smile]

6. LOL. Right.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


Are they going to skip the original version and read it as amended? Of course, the Amendment that changed it was that pesky 14th Amendment that they would like to mess around with to get rid of that inconvenient (to them) Birthright Citizenship.

[Yupster]

67. The three-fifths rule

was changed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I don't know if it's technically still in it. All the versions I have show lines crossing that part out.

The guys writing the Constitution were smart enough to include an amendment process. I wish it was used more.

[nyy1998]

44. LMAO, I'd bet on someone like Rangel to shout that out.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lint Head]

2. What a waste of time and taxpayers money.

[mudplanet]

3. Education is never a waste

I really think it's a good thing.

[shawn703]

7. No, it's a waste

Because the first thing these teabaggers should have learned about the Constitution is that whether a law is Constitutional or not is not determined by Congress but by the courts.

A lawmaker can find ways to "interpret" the Constitution to support whatever crazy-ass bill he wants. Just like a minister can "interpret" the Bible to justify the accumulation of wealth, or any other religious fanatic can "interpret" their religious text to justify the murder of "heretics".

[JDPriestly]

27. If the Supreme Court reviews some of these new laws, we will have

the last laugh. This is a very cute gimmick, but kind of silly. For one thing, a law could appear to comply with the Constitution but violate it as it is applied. I seriously doubt that past Congresses have not thoroughly considered and argued the constitutionality of the laws they passed. That is what congressional aides are for -- to review legislation for constitutionality, consistency and other such things. This is just a lot of theatre.

[Bandit]

66. This current Extreme Court is even more crazy than the new Congress.

It will not be difficult for Republicans to get the Extreme Court to do and or say whatever they wish..

[pacalo]

36. I agree, shawn. It's all in the interpretation. Just look at how the fundies

(mis)interpret the Bible to fit their intolerance.

On the up side, we may be seeing more thoughtful debates & research about the founding fathers' intentions. Thomas Jefferson's writings could put the baggers to shame, if they have any.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

58. Nah, they'll do a pro-forma reading and then just ignore it as needed

Or pull out the standard arguments about how they think the constitution makes taxes illegal or what-have-you.

I'd rather people be required to read the legislation.

[Hosnon]

4. If they just read the Constitution, they won't find judicial review. nt.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

9. Sure they will...

...it just ain't called "judicial review".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

[Bacchus39]

39. judicial review was established in Marbury vs. Madison, not the Constitution

[Hosnon]

68. Judicial review stems from interpretation of the Constitution, not its explicit language.

And since Wikipedia has been put forth as authoritative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

"At the federal level, there is no power of judicial review explicitly established in the United States Constitution, but the doctrine has been inferred from the structure of that document."

[OneAngryDemocrat]

71. In other words...

I'm not hung-up on whether or not it is ''explicitly'' written into the Constitution, Hosnon.

It's there, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

And that makes it there, until a future court says otherwise.

[Hosnon]

72. I agree it's there. But if you just read the Constitution out load (topic of this thread),

then it won't be mentioned.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

5. Actually...

...the rule places our elected officials in Congress into a role that the Constitution specifically grants only to Supreme Court justices: arbiters of what is, or is not, Constitutional.

Alone, the rule is meaningless fluff, as stated before.

However...the separation of powers will come into play when one Congressman challenges another's Constitutional citation, when debating a bill on the floor of the House.

Challenging a bill's Constitutionality, on the floor, is nothing new.

What is new, however, is the MANDATORY requirement that our sitting representatives don literal black robes, as a prerequisite of getting their bill to the floor (i.e., if the House members were able to determine the constitutionality of a bill before it becomes a law, there'd be no need, whatsoever, for a Supreme Court to address the law, after it passes).

This ''rule'' is yet another example of how the radical right HATES the courts.

[ttwiddler]

16. I don't think so

I don't see a separation of powers issue here because Congress has had to identify its source of authority since the Burger Court. I also doubt that you'll see arguments over which section of the constitution apply for given legislation. Generally, the arguments are over the scope of the sections, not the sections themselves.

Incidentally, the constitution does not make those nine justices the supreme arbiters of constitutionality. The power of judicial review is derived from the inherent powers of the courts, not a constitutional grant. The political (elected) branches have equal authority to determine constitutionality, as is shown in their basic functions. While I find citing the grant of constitutional authority to be generally redundant (as it should be obvious the vast majority of the time), there's no separation of powers issue here.

This whole exercise is designed to be a big show of "constitutionality." It's to make the stupid feel as though something important has been done when the opposite is true.

[JDPriestly]

32. Welcome to DU ttwiddler.

This whole exercise is designed to be a big show of "constitutionality." It's to make the stupid feel as though something important has been done when the opposite is true.

Wonderful! You said it, and I agree 100% with you on that.

I think that some Democratic members of Congress (probably a couple of those who have law degrees) are going to have a bit of fun with this. It just invites a good laugh every once in a while.

Of course, Congress has to have the authority under the Constitution to pass every law it passes. This is obvious.

It's like telling a professional bicyclist "Now, the first thing you have to do is sit on the seat and put your feet on the pedals." It's a non-brainer.

The only reason no Congress has made this a rule is because it is already an unspoken rule. Wow, these Tea-Baggers are off to a good start. Look forward to two years of kindergarten pranks. Hold tight. This is going to be a ride full of laughs.

And, of course, there at the front, will be President Obama, stoically trying to herd that bunch of monkeys in the House.

My advice to Obama for the next two years is to just sit back, throw a few bananas and watch Boehner and his band of monkeys fight each other for them. Nothing serious is going to get done.

Poor Obama. I am sometimes quite critical of him. But he is a good, decent human being and really deserves more to work with than this particular crop of Republican members of the House.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

70. Um... no.

Congress does NOT have to pass Constitutional laws, JD.

The reality that the SCOTUS has previously overturned (and will overturn again) laws COngress has passed is a matter of record.

We would ''LIKE'' Congress to pass Constitutional laws, but, there is nothing stopping Congress of passing a law that would force everyone to wear purple underwear on the outside of a yellow jumpsuit, tomorrow, and then letting the Courts settle the matter.

It is, after all, the SCOTUS' job to keep the Congress in line.

Every hear of 'checks and balances'? This is eigth grade civics, JDPriestly.

I do not agree with ttwiddler's guess that we wion't see arguments over which section of the constitution apply for given legislation.

We will.

Most definitely.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

29. Some lawyer in the House is not going to be able to resist .......

Oh, what fun! Can't wait!

[rucky]

8. This oughta boost C-Span's ratings

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[nyy1998]

45. Fox News might go crazy, I could see Gretchen Carlson crying during the amendment.

[dflprincess]

73. I'm betting Boehner has a breakdown when they get to the 21st Amendment

probably several members of Congress will.

[NoGOPZone]

10. I hope they're not expecting to find the word "God" in there. nt

[Hugin]

11. I bet they don't even get to that socialist "promote the general welfare" part.

They'll choke on it like a hound-dog trying to swallow a peach pit.

:rofl:

[KansDem]

13. LOL!!! I can hear it now...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, pro-(cough, cough)-fare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

:rofl:

[former9thward]

17. The Constitution was a capitalistic document written by capitalists.

There is no socialist clause in there. None.

[bongbong]

22. That's funny

You're funny!

[former9thward]

34. You seriously think the founders were socialists??

Now that is funny.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[former9thward]

47. Any non anarchist would agree with that quote.

Even a libertarian like Ron Paul would. It is incredible someone would post on this site, or any other one, that the founders were socialists. The vast majority were businessmen upset with British taxes and other interference in their business interests. I didn't know slavery was a socialist principle. Almost all the founders owned slaves.

[LiberalFighter]

51. They were not against taxes. They were against not having a say.

[former9thward]

55. They were against British taxes.

Were you not able to read the word "British" in front of the word "taxes"?

[Hugin]

56. Well, they most assuredly weren't "Capitalists" either... Considering the term didn't appear until

1854

[former9thward]

59. Middle age kings probably didn't describe themselves as

feudalistic but that is what they were in today's terms. What were businessmen in colonial American if not capitalists? Besides I was replying to posters who seem to feel the Constitution is some sort of socialist document and the founders were socialist. Those posts are written by people who either do not know the Constitution or they don't know socialism. I doubt the word "socialism" was around in the 1780s either.

[Hugin]

61. No, if I recall they considered themselves to be deities.

Something the neo-feudalistic "Tea-Baggers" would like to regain... Or, so it would seem.

[Hugin]

26. For your eyes only.

Oh, he's just yakin' on a bone.

[sulphurdunn]

12. "They (Republicans) will read the Constitution aloud."

I knew parrots could talk but always thought only humans could read. Whodda thunk parrots could do both? :shrug:

[mudplanet]

46. From A Fish Called Wanda

Apes read philosophy, too, Otto, they just don't understand it.
And the London Underground is a subway, not a political movement.

[suston96]

14. What incredible ignorance.....

The Constitution is a skeletal - repeat: skeletal framing document.

Ever see a house framed. Just sticks. Bare-assed sticks. The finishing is done by expert craftspeople - like legislators.....wait a second. Never mind.

But there will be instances requiring detailed legislation that is not specified in a skeletal framing document. The FCC - where is that? Oh, I know - the commerce clause.

So, where in the commerce clause is the FCC?

I once argued with an Attorney General (Massachusetts) that a ballot initiative regarding term limits violated the federal and state constitutions. Know what he said? So what? If it's passed the courts will take care of it. They did. The ballot initiative passed by the people was found to be unconstitutional by both state and USSC.

Proposed legislation can be screened for blatant anti-constitutionality to reduce procedural efforts after the legislation is passed but every proposed piece of legislation cannot be assured constitutional relevance. That would be almost impossible, especially with the federal constitution which was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

[former9thward]

54. That Attorney General was violating his oath of office.

He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. For him to say "let the courts take care of it" was a violation of his responsibility to uphold the document, pure laziness or worse. Would that be his attitude if he was trying to convict someone on shoddy evidence? 'So what, if he is wrongly convicted the courts will take care of it'. Sometimes the courts don't take care of these things.

[mrcheerful]

64. Excuse me but that is exactly how the courts and DA's do take care of

criminal cases and it is why the prisons are filled with people who were convicted on shoddy evidence or no evidence what so ever except the testimony of a witness or worse a jail house snitch.

[former9thward]

69. If you had bothered to read the post which you didn't

that was the point I was making. The poster I was replying to implied the AG he was talking to had no Constitutional duty concerning laws. He does have one and it is in the oath of office. The courts often do not take care of these problems.

[mrcheerful]

74. Ok I miss read your post.

I noticed lately there are a lot of pro status quo pro justice posts where more or less the poster thinks a conviction by the courts is on the up and up. I knew a guy who got 15 to 20 after the judge in the lower court said I know the witness is lying but something happened the witness said it happened and then said he was kicking it up to the higher court for that judge to figure out.

It being election year the judge in the higher court was running on his 100% conviction rate. What made it worse was the guys court appointed said nothing for 4 court appearances then told the guy that he take the plea bargain or else he was going to do 20 years because the judge also let him know if he went to trial and was found guilty he was sentencing him to the harshest punishment in his power to sentence him to. What always bothered me was the judges pride in his 100% conviction rate, that means everyone that went before him was convicted regardless of guilt or innocence. Btw, the judge won re-election for the last 20 years because of his tough on crime attitude.

[former9thward]

75. I am in the business and you are 100% correct

[Doctor_J]

84. actually, no

the AG's responsibility is to enforce laws that are in effect. Once the legislature has passed a law, and the courts have deemed it constitutional, then the AG enforces it.

According to your profile, looks like you joined a few weeks ago to gloat. Time's almost up.

[wilt the stilt]

15. Republicans will be masturbating in public n/t

[november3rd]

31. yeah, but

Where is that prohibited in the Constitution?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AsahinaKimi]

19. I am sure that after they read it

They will band together to RE-WRITE it.

[valerief]

24. Maybe they'll read their rewritten version and say it's the official version.

Of course, their M$M will support them. History rewritten live on C-SPAN.

[november3rd]

33. Maybe we can all get in on that

If we descend en masse upon the Capitol and stay there like the orange revolution in Ukraine or wherever it was. Just like half the voting population show up physically at the capitol building and demand our 1st amendment rights then and there and NOT LEAVE.

[sweetapogee]

85. and just exactly

november3rd would be the purpose of our DC sit-down? To exercise our constitutional right of assembly to protest the reading of the constitution in the house chamber?

[flamin lib]

20. Article 8--covers EVERYTHING deemed as providing for the general welfare. nt

[safeinOhio]

41. Damn, it's fool those

loop-holes. Whats we gonna do now buba?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

21. Ah yes, The Sanity Clause Sketch.

:D

[valerief]

23. They'll probably get stuck on the second amendment like an old record player needle and repeat it

endlessly.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[DCKit]

25. Next thing you know, they'll require fundy preachers start reading the Bible...

instead of cherry-picking and parsing whatever phrase suits their hatred at each moment.

[mudplanet]

48. Yea, but which bible?

[november3rd]

28. Promote the General Welfare

I think they're going to leave some of it out as too liberal.

[Recursion]

30. "Contract With America" tried this same thing

Everybody just started using "Interstate Commerce" or "General Welfare" (even though that second clause isn't legally operative in any way).

[november3rd]

35. They Don't Make Sense

If you click through the Post's photos with captions on these clowns, they all want contradictory things: Free Markets and a strong economy with a lot of jobs: nope. You can't have a strong economy with jobs in a free market. In a free market you get corporate monopolies with large payoffs to Congress, not a strong economy with jobs.

Shrink government and get a strong economy with jobs: nope. You can't have a strong economy with jobs if you shrink government. What you will have is corporate monopolies with large payoffs to Congress, not a healthy economy with jobs, though.

Unfettered free-market capitalism, a strong economy and private health care. Private health care will exist for the corporate chiefs who pollute the public to death and can afford private health care because of their corporate monopolies and payoffs to Congress.

These clowns are fodder for corporate lobbyists.

[harun]

50. They are all hypocrites.

[NewJeffCT]

38. Are they going to read the part about it being unconstitutional to let the US default on its debt?

just curious...

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Amendment_XIV

[sweetapogee]

86. that is

something that can cause us a lot of grief.

[DainBramaged]

40. EVERYBODY who isn't a teabagger knows more about everything than they do

[bongbong]

43. They could save time

Just read a one-liner from the most distinguished republican in history, Abraham Lincoln.

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people." - Abraham Lincoln, 1837

[yurbud]

76. great quote!

[Politicalboi]

49. They'll probably

Start reading the Declaration of Independence without even knowing the difference. Ala John Boner.

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-madison/boehner-confuses-constitution-with-declaration-and-grievances-within-document-to-current-events

[Confusious]

52. Actually, you have that wrong

There is nothing in the constitution that says the supreme court gets to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

It was just seized as a power by one of the first supreme courts.

[LiberalFighter]

53. There is a difference between reading the Consitution and understanding it.

Most people, especially Republicans and Teabaggers are clueless.

[glinda]

63. The most dangerous ones will take the Constitution into Federalist territory.

[savalez]

57. So basically none of the baggers have read it....

and they will only read it if they all do it together.

[RC]

60. There are big words in there and no pictures.

They have to wait for their talking points to know what each section mean.

[crim son]

62. I'm sure this is merely a showman's act.

Many of those newly in office will have been elected by teabaggers and other ignorant, discontented souls. The reading will keep them interested for a while longer and give the impression that the reps are indeed concerned about what the document tells us. Oooooh, they're in for an unpleasant surprise.

[freshwest]

65. Excellent. Learning is good for everyone.

[Evasporque]

80. THey do what they did to the bible...Pick and Choose...

Parts that don't agree with their positions they ignore...any section that supports their ideology they pound into everyone.

[dkofos]

81. What good will it do to read it if they are incapable of comprehending it.

And how much of the legislation they have already passed will they have to declare UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Thanks sheeple of America for giving us 2 years of moronic theater.

[jmowreader]

82. Here's the teabaggers' biggest problem

Article I, Section 8--Powers of Congress--gives the Congress, in the first line, "the 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" and that covers damn near anything Congress wants to do.

[sweetapogee]

87. .

time will tell, should be interesting. eom

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

83. Will they require the other Repugs to sit still while it's being read?

Or is this going to be one of those C-Span moments where the close up shows the speaker and the wide shot shows a totally empty chamber?

I'd like to see them (again, the Teabaggers) be required to take a test on what has been read. For that matter, I'd like to see them pass the test that applicants for U.S. citizenship must take.

Naturalization Test Questions