PDA

View Full Version : H.R. 450


PatriotnMore
04-13-2009, 9:33 AM
Please write your congressman, and urge their support of this bill.

Please take the time to read it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-450

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-450

CCWFacts
04-13-2009, 10:11 AM
This is a bill that would require Congress to state the constitutional authority for all its bills.

It sounds like a good idea, but...

Congress already does this. I would guess that 95% of what Congress passes is based on the commerce clause, and they normally put in a "whereas" that says, "whereas, Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and regulating how many pieces of toilet paper you may use when you wipe has an effect on interstate commerce."

The problem is the 10th amend has basically been removed from the BoR by FDR's packed Supreme Court.

SmokinMr2
04-13-2009, 10:34 AM
"To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes."

nick
04-13-2009, 10:45 AM
That's actually a great idea. That way there's no ambiguity (well, less ambiguity) if/when the specific constitutional authority they site is proven to be non-existent.

CCWFacts
04-13-2009, 11:14 AM
That's actually a great idea. That way there's no ambiguity (well, less ambiguity) if/when the specific constitutional authority they site is proven to be non-existent.

See my point above. This law is not needed because the 10th amend already mandates that Congress can't do anything they don't have constitutional authority to do, so they must specify the specific constitutional power they are using. They already always specify, and it's the commerce clause 95% of the time, and after the travesty of Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) the courts have gutted the meaning of the 10th amend.

PatriotnMore
04-13-2009, 11:43 AM
You either believe it is needed, or you don't. There are 19 co-sponsors in the business who think we do. Along with what we see as reality in an expanding government, I feel it is needed.

Quoted from John Shadegg:

"This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government," he said. " It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that werereserved to them by the Constitution."

Shadegg said the act would perform three important functions:
1. It would encourage members of Congress to consider whether their proposedlegislation belongs in the federal level in the allocation of powers or whether it belongswith the states or the people.

2. It would force lawmakers to include statements explaining by what authority they are acting.

3. It would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to
scrutinize constitutional justification for every piece of
legislation. If the justification does not hold up, the
courts and the people could hold Congress accountable
and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the
Constitution.

He said the Founding Fathers granted specific, limited
powers to the national government to protect the people's
freedom. "As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal
Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18
powers," Shadegg noted.

Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he said, Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded federal government.
"Let me be clear," he said. "Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned.

But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well."

While many believe government "can do anything," that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for the nation, Shadegg contends.

http://d.scribd.com/docs/1z9mf22gipdecyvqtmi3.pdf

nick
04-13-2009, 11:48 AM
See my point above. This law is not needed because the 10th amend already mandates that Congress can't do anything they don't have constitutional authority to do, so they must specify the specific constitutional power they are using. They already always specify, and it's the commerce clause 95% of the time, and after the travesty of Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) the courts have gutted the meaning of the 10th amend.

Yeah, and the 2nd Amendment mandates that we have the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Last I checked, CA PC prohibits just that.

Until and unless we actually straighten out the consittutional issues (as in adhering to the plain meaning of the Constitution, not some convoluted and tortured interpretations of it's rather plain text), I wouldn't mind a little reminder on the books.