Ezra: "What the tea party wants from the Constitution"

[Clio the Leo]

For my fellow Ezra "fans" this may be his best article yet. (Like Joe Biden, I am LITERALLY prone to hyperbole.) Love the way it SMACKS you right in the middle of the story.

But first, some background...

House GOP: Bills Will Have to Cite Constitution

Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”

And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class, Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5 start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center.

GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/house-gop-bills-will-have-to-cite-constitution.html

What the tea party wants from the Constitution
By Ezra Klein

I'm very curious to know what the GOP -- or the tea partyers they're presumably pandering to -- think will happen when every piece of legislation requires "a statement from its sponsor outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation." What's the evidence that this will make legislation more, rather than less, constitutional, for whatever your definition of the Constitution is?

Let's take an example: Most legislation doesn't currently include a statement of constitutional authority. But there's one recent measure that did: Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That is to say, the individual mandate.

"The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the requirement) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce," reads the opening paragraph. Shortly thereafter, the legislation makes itself more explicit: "In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation."

<snip>

My friends on the right don't like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you've not signed up with a "well-regulated militia," but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they've done it.

That's their right, of course. Liberals pick and choose their moments of textual fidelity as well. But as the seemingly endless series of 5-4 splits on the Supreme Court shows, even the country's most experienced and decorated constitutional authorities routinely disagree, and sharply, over what the text means when applied to today's problems. To presume that people writing what they think the Constitution means -- or, in some cases, want to think it means -- at the bottom of every bill will change how they legislate doesn't demonstrate a reverence for the document. It demonstrates a disengagement with it as anything more than a symbol of what you and your ideological allies believe.

In reality, the tea party -- like most everyone else -- is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they'll respect them. When they don't -- as we've seen in the case of the individual mandate -- they won't.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/what_the_tea_party_wants_from.html

[Drale]

1. If this does come into practice

I really hope and its a very good chance, that any legislation that the right brings to the table wont be able to pass because we all know they know nothing about the constitution.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Not true! They know the Preamble..

you know, "we hold these truths and all." ;)

[starroute]

7. Uh -- that's the Declaration of Independence

The Preamble to the Constitution is the "promote the general welfare" stuff. I don't think the teebaggers are too hip to that part.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Clio the Leo]

8. I know that and you know that....

.... but THEY dont know that. ;)

[struggle4progress]

2. If the Constitution and the legislation pursuant to it were crystal clear, one might seldom

need a court

[hadrons]

4. "well-regulated militia"

Reads like the founding fathers were a-OK with regulation

[ManiacJoe]

5. But not the way you are suggesting.

[hadrons]

12. LOL ... I was kidding

[Statistical]

6. Worst. Example. Ever.

The phrase well regulated had nothing to do with regulation. Actually the use of "regulation" to mean "to govern or direct according to rule" didn't really enter common usage for about 100 years after the Constitution was written.


"well regulated" circa 1776 means accurate, functional, effective,

From the 1690 version of Oxford Dictionary
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

From Journals of the Continental Congress 1776
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

From George Washington's letter 1898
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

From Colonel Fleming (Dumore's War) 1774
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.

It is obvious that substitution modern meaning of regulation for "well regulated" in the above passages makes no sense. However substituting "effective", or "capable" does.

Hence a "well regulated" militia in modern parlance would mean simply "an effective militia".

[Volaris]

9. I get what you're saying, and I agree with your assessment, but...

lunatic redneck idiots running around America's backwoods with automatic weapons and not one iota of Federal (or even State-level) supervision is not my idea of the functional definition of an effective anything, to say NOTHING of how a modern military force is supposed to operate. =)But yeah, I agree, well-regulated, sometimes, does not mean what we think it SHOULD mean lol.
Happy New Year's to all here,
Peace

[hadrons]

11. hmmmm, I wasn't being serious

just having fun with the 'regulated' in the Constitution

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. somebody tell them about Marbury v. Madison.

That's the case from 1802 that says case law can modify and strike down statute law. That's how many rights have been extrapolated out of the constitution that were not there in the text. Right to privacy and the contraception/abortion cases, for example.