Page 2 of 2
Re: Constitution Has "No Binding Power" and is Confusing
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:45 pm
by mr surveyor
Quote:
"..the new House leadership is going to impose a rule that each and every bill has to have a clause explicitly stating where Constitutional power is granted to the Feds to be legislating whatever is in the bill."
That is what I want to see adhered to, 100%.
We should hold them to that, if nothing else!
surv
Re: Constitution Has "No Binding Power" and is Confusing
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:59 pm
by G26ster
mr surveyor wrote:Quote:
"..the new House leadership is going to impose a rule that each and every bill has to have a clause explicitly stating where Constitutional power is granted to the Feds to be legislating whatever is in the bill."
That is what I want to see adhered to, 100%.
We should hold them to that, if nothing else!
surv
it would be quite useless for them to state where the power under the Constitution comes from. An example is the major issue with the health care bill. The Dems say the Commerce Clause allows them to force you to buy health insurance, and the Repubs say it does not. Only the courts can decide the Constitutionality of a bill. Opposition simply saying it is not constitutional means nothing.
Re: Constitution Has "No Binding Power" and is Confusing
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:37 pm
by mr surveyor
yep, that is true...in the debate phase. I want to see the language tied in directly to the bill, in written form. Then 2-3 years later when/if there is a true Constitutional challenge that makes it to SCOTUS, and the law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the authors of the bill would easily be held accountable. I believe that is the reasoning behind the current proposal - accountability.
We shall see.
surv
Re: Constitution Has "No Binding Power" and is Confusing
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:50 pm
by G26ster
mr surveyor wrote:yep, that is true...in the debate phase. I want to see the language tied in directly to the bill, in written form. Then 2-3 years later when/if there is a true Constitutional challenge that makes it to SCOTUS, and the law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the authors of the bill would easily be held accountable. I believe that is the reasoning behind the current proposal - accountability.
We shall see.
surv
Accountability for what, to whom? Politicians/Presidents/Legal Scholars disagree with past and present SCOTUS decisions all the time. The only thing that SCOTUS can do is strike down a law. If this happens with the current health care bill, then the authors/proponents/supporters of the bill with simply say, "We strongly disagree with today's decision," and the opponents of the bill will say, "This is a great victory for the American people," and everyone will move on from there.