Just when you think they can't get any more extremist......

[marmar]

Edited to correct the ridiculous omission of words in the subject line.


via AlterNet:




Yet Another GOPer Ignores Parts of Constitution They Claim to Cherish


Rep. Scott Garrett (R) of New Jersey isn't the highest profile member of the new House GOP majority, but he does offer one of the more radical constitutional worldviews on Capitol Hill.

Garrett is allied with the extremist "Tenther" effort, which effectively argues the federal government lacks the legal authority to do much of anything outside the explicit text of the Constitution. In practical terms, this means Garrett would like to eliminate all federal spending on public schools and transportation projects, for example, since the Constitution doesn't say federal officials have the authority to invest in education and infrastructure.

With this in mind, we know House Republicans want members to cite constitutional authority when sponsoring bills, but Garrett would like to go even further.

Garrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution. Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

This is almost hilarious. Republicans want lawmakers to reference the Constitution to justify their legislation, but Scott Garrett wants to exclude the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like.

For all the recent talk from the right about honoring, reading, and celebrating constitutional principles, here we have one extremely conservative Republican insisting that two critical provisions of constitutional text more or less don't count.

As Ian Millhiser explained:

The General Welfare Clause states that Congress has the power to "provide for the ... general welfare of the United States," and is the basis for virtually all federal domestic spending. So Garrett's proposal would prevent Congress from spending money on pretty much anything except for the military (another provision of the Constitution that Garrett does not propose ignoring empowers Congress to "provide for the common defense.") The Necessary and Proper Clause, while not quite as essential to a functioning government as Congress' power to spend money, is the basis for Congress' power to print legal tender.

I'd feel a little better about Republicans' alleged interest in the Constitution if they didn't pick and choose which provisions deserve their support.


By Steve Benen | Sourced from Washington Monthly
Posted at January 4, 2011, 12:30 pm


http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/422946/yet_another_goper_ignores_parts_of_constitution_they_claim_to_cherish/

[Parche]

1. and where in the constitution

does it say send my tax dollars to Iraq??

fukin republicans are a piece of work

[bluestateguy]

2. So building the Cumberland Road in 1811 was unconstitutional?

Historical revisionists might like to think that federal funding for transportation projects was some New Deal or Great society innovation, but it goes back 200 years.

[Angry Dragon]

3. "provide for the common defense."

where does it say the military can attack??
defense means defend not offense

[damntexdem]

4. They can always get more extremist. Who will put on limits?

Obama and many Congressional Dems often cave rather than fight back fiercely. And every compromise with the right seems to move the 'center' further right.

[notadmblnd]

5. I believe that the constitution also says that only congress can declare war

and I don't believe that was the case for the last two. Does this mean we will be getting our sons and daughters back post haste?

[DCKit]

6. Congressional pensions and subsidized healthcare are not found in the Constitution either.

In fact, I believe they should volunteer to serve the country, at their own expense.

On edit:

Let their constituents support them, directly - if they feel it's worth it.